Black People More Homophobic? You’re Kidding, Right?

by Guest Contributor Monica Roberts, originally published at TransGriot

One of the memes that has irritated many Black people gay, transgender and straight since the Prop 8 debacle has been the ‘Black people are more homophobic’ one.

You’re kidding, right?

Every time I’m watching TV I see predominately white ministers such as James Dobson, other white fundamentalists, white dominated anti equality orgs and peeps like Tony Perkins leading the anti gay charge. Fred Phelps checks the ‘white’ box on his census forms, and the megachurches bankrolling these rights rollback or anti same gender marriage amendments have membership rolls of predominately European ancestry.

I’m not saying we don’t have ‘phobes in our midst. The peeps who are selling out to the white fundies like the Hi Impact leadership Coalition come immediately to mind along with the homophobic pronouncements of people like Rev. Gregory Daniels, Donnie McClurkin, and Rev. Bernice King.

But it was the Mormon church who provided the cash to fund and provided the foot soldiers for the Yes On 8 Forces of Intolerance. Last time I checked, the Mormon church ain’t exactly chock full of members who look like me.

I find it laughable the Blacks are ‘more homophobic’ charge when the number one blog for almost a year in the Afrosphere’s BBR’s (Black Blog Rankings) has been the GLBT oriented Pam’s House Blend. I and my transsisters have received much love, support, hands of friendship and sisterhood from womanists, but the predominately white dominated rad fem ranks have shown me and my transsisters nothing but hostile vitriolic hatred for three decades.

Even our civil rights icons such as Rep. John Lewis, Julian Bond and the late Coretta Scott King have consistently stated that GLBT rights are not only civil tights but human rights.

And if Black people are so homophobic as was scurrilously charged in California based on a flawed exit poll in Los Angeles County, explain why Prop 8 was defeated in Alameda County, which has a 13% Black population?

The major problem I have with the ‘Black people are more homophobic’ meme is that the peeps that keep spouting it are not only overwhelmingly white gays such as Dan Savage and others, but it deliberately ignores the fact there are Black SGL people as well.

If you want to eventually win the fight for same gender marriage, you can’t continue to write off large chunks of the electorate because you have this false belief that our community is ‘more homophobic’, won’t be receptive to your message and won’t even try to be in my community to win it. You have to find a message that resonates with us just like you do any other community, and you’ll need the help of the Black SGL/transgender community and our allies to do that. Failure to engage my community means failure to win at the ballot box.

So just as the white community has not only ‘phobes but supporters and allies, so do we. It’s past time you stop demonizing us with this disrespectful discredited meme and start humbly asking what can you do to win our support.

Share and Enjoy:

Comments

Rob Schmidt wrote:

Couldn’t we resolve this question with some simple poll results? I.e., what percentage of whites and blacks oppose gays?

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 10:21 am ¶
Mucus wrote:

Actually, the observation that blacks (and hispanics) supported proposition 8 more than the rest of the population is statistical in nature. I highly recommend reading the paper here:
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf

It would prove a lot more useful than trying to disprove the observation by your strategy of numerous anecdotes.

In particular, note that “African American and Latino voters supported Proposition 8 to a greater degree, 58% and 59% respectively, than did whites and Asians. According to this survey, blacks’ support for the ballot measure was much lower than reported by Election Day exit polls.” (Whites and Asians were 49% and 48% respectively) So superficially, the observation is true.

However, when they dig deeper they find that the real reason is that:
“As shown in Figure 4, African Americans are more religious (as measured by frequency of attendance at religious services) than any other racial or ethnic group of California voters. As a whole, 43 percent of Californians attend religious services at least once per week. The share of African Americans attending services with this frequency is much higher: 57 percent. This difference in frequency of attendance between African Americans and the rest of the population is statistically significant. 6
As shown in Figure 5, controlling for frequency of religious attendance helps explain why African Americans supported Proposition 8 at higher levels than the population as a whole. Among Californians who attend worship at least weekly, support for Proposition 8 was nearly uniform across all racial and ethnic groups. Among those who attend worship less than weekly, majorities of every racial and ethnic group voted “no” on Proposition 8. The differences that remain among groups are not statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence.”

In other words, when you control for religion by either taking it out of the picture or putting it in, black people vote the same as the rest of the population.

The observation (and problem) isn’t that black people voted more often against Proposition 8 *because they were black* but simply because they were more likely to be hobbled by religion for whatever historical reasons that make them more religious than other groups.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 10:39 am ¶
monstermash wrote:

so are you against gay marriage? i’m confused by the ‘you need to humbly ask what you can do to win our support’ thing. that sounds arrogant.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 10:41 am ¶
Monie wrote:

I agree with you Monica about Black people not being more homophobic. I think that it’s a good narrative for everyone to talk about an oppressed group oppressing others, even if it’s not really true.

My only question regarding your piece is you say; “it’s past time you stop demonizing us with this disrespectful discredited meme and start humbly asking what can you do to win our support.”

Where does the Black LGBT community fit in? Why do we need to wait for the White LGBT community to reach out to the str8 Black community? Isn’t that something that we can do for ourselves?

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 11:05 am ¶
Renee wrote:

I could not agree more with this post. I believe that the “blacks are uniquely homophobic meme”, is largely peddled by white members ( yes that means you Dan Savage) of the GLBT movement that refuse to own their undeserved privilege. When we examine the power structure in the US, clearly it is not blacks that are denying gay rights. We do not exist with the social power to do anything of the sort.
I also feel that it is pertinent to point out that many black leaders have spoken out in favor of gay rights and yet this is seldom acknowledged. The point is that these leaders are attempting to play the “just like you card”. They want sympathy from the white power structure by claiming that that GLB’s are being treated poorly because they are being treated like blacks, hence the gay is the new black meme. The unacknowledged racism in the community is disgusting.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 11:11 am ¶
method wrote:

Sometimes posts on this site fail to make the distinction between “it’s true, but it’s not useful to dwell on it” and “it’s not true”. The statistics that Mucus links to show the true situation. Slightly less than half of whites who voted supported prop. 8 and about 60 % of blacks who voted supported it. That’s a lot more white “homophobes”, but proportionally less. So the idea is that if it had only been whites and Asians voting the proposition wouldn’t have passed. Hence the hand-wringing.

Mucus’ and the study’s qualification about religion doesn’t actually make sense, as if you could separate a population from its religiousness, although it might suggest specific ways to reach people (try: “love thy neighbor”).

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 11:43 am ¶
k. emvee wrote:

Thank you Mucus.

I’ve been incredibly uncomfortable with the racist claim that Black people are more homophobic than other racial groups. However, I’ve found it extremely difficult to have discussions with folks who use the statistics around Prop 8 to be their evidence and proof of this claim.

Your explanation of the numbers was exactly what I needed. Now I have numbers of my own to backup what I already knew in my gut to be true.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 12:40 pm ¶
CC wrote:

“Humbly asking for your support” sounds extremely, extremely arrogant. And you’re missing the point of your own argument – just because some whites are homophobic doesn’t mean some blacks aren’t. Yes, Prop 8 was largely funded by the Mormon Church. So what? Are you saying there is no black out there who agreed with them even if he isn’t Mormon?

I’m all for GLBT rights, as well as racial equality (I’m a white female Jew, fyi). But please stop tarring us all with the same brush; you’re doing exactly what you’re decrying.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 12:46 pm ¶
Kendra wrote:

Mentioning church attendance and religion does not prove that the two inherently link blacks to a predisposition to homophobic inclinations. Rather, it can show you how the Yes on 8 campaign did their thing. They knew where to go in order to power their voting engine and this is where the No on 8 campaign was very lacking. I have to say that if not for my personal life experiences, and certainly no thanks to the lackluster work of No on 8 supporters and the campaign, I might have been one of those black people who did vote yes on 8. Really, I didn’t hear much from No on 8 until election day (from a person handing out fliers). Other than that, I had a television commercial to engage me on the few occasions where I was able to watch TV. I did not vote yes on 8 because at least a year prior to the challenging of the same sex marriage legislation I had already had a significant change of heart.

We also need to consider that not all blacks in the state of California are of voting capacity. Some have been disenfranchised, some are for other reasons unable to vote–some chose not to vote at all–and others are not old enough to vote. So the polls do not accurately characterize the 6 – 7 percent piece of California’s population that blacks represent. And I say that if we’re going to try to tackle the issue of homophobia and other isms we don’t just target ONE racial minority. We take everyone to task. What, white people get a day off just b/c the majority didn’t vote yes? Well, there’s still a hefty amount that think otherwise so I would still worry about them and everyone else, too. I mean, had the prop been defeated, would the rest of the US have decided that the gays had won and there was nothing else to fight about? Would that have been a good perception? That same sex marriage was the final frontier for all gay people? I mean, this would have ignored so many other factors affecting all lgbtqrc peeps, especially queer people of color. So perhaps it was for the best that the proposition succeeded because it revealed a lot of flaws in the movement.

Of course I don’t think it’s a good thing that the proposition passed. I mean, it ruined plans that people had for their lives and it probably broke up many homes or complicated legal issues. But it happened so now we must determine how to move forward from this failure.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 12:56 pm ¶
Jess wrote:

@method —

you CAN separate a population from religiousness. Just ask them how many go to church regularly, or believe in god, or whatever.

The point Mucus made is pretty simple — if you took the black population and how they voted, and then broke that down further, you get a picture that says people supported prop 8 more if they were religious (however one describes it) just like white people.

Another big factor is education. I did a post on this when prop 8 passed, here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/12/75832/151

Education seemed to be a huge factor, and given that black (and Latino) voters are less likely to have BAs generally then it would make sense that you’d see a spike when you control for that.

(I should add there is a third wrinkle, age, as an older generation of black people would have fewer college grads in it than a younger one).

But I wasn’t sure that was really the case because I didn’t do a double-control and couldn’t find polling data that broke it down. But my suspicion is that if you took a whole stack of black folks and asked about prop 8 and controlled for education, you would see that the ones who went to college are more likely to oppose it than those who didn’t — just like among white people.

On top of all that it assumes the black population was enough to swing it. That really isn’t the case in California. Georgia, Mississippi, I could buy it, California no.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 1:22 pm ¶
Brooklyne Gipson wrote:

While I do think that there is a great stigma against gays in the African American community it’s hard to quantify whether or not it’s that much greater than in other communities. It’s very difficult, perhaps impossible to quantify whether or not one ethnicity of people is more homophobic than another and therefore quite futile to even attempt.

Why aren’t LGBT issues on black America’s radar? http://theloop21.com/news/why-arent-lgbt-issues-black-americas-radar

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 1:29 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:

So the idea is that if it had only been whites and Asians voting the proposition wouldn’t have passed.

Wishful thinking? Considering that Blacks made up 7% of voters (who presumably voted on that prop at all), how likely would a portion of that 7% be translated into the overall 2%+ to vote down the prop? Considering that the 14% of Latinos is increasing (as are their ranks of GLBT), shouldn’t you be making inroads to those communities as well?

It would prove a lot more useful than trying to disprove the observation by your strategy of numerous anecdotes.

How is this useful for enlisting the support of black GLBT and allies?

so are you against gay marriage? i’m confused by the ‘you need to humbly ask what you can do to win our support’ thing. that sounds arrogant.

Not anymore arrogant than ignoring GLBT POC.

What have you done to address these communities’ concerns?
***

You [collective] can’t see the forest for the trees. Black Homophobia Obsession is distracting you -again – from focusing on what you ostensibly want and more importantly…how you intend to get there.

I support gay marriage. The blatant erasing of GLBT of color from not only this movement, but your (collectively, not personally) mindset is not only morally repugnant-but shortsighted. Watching you do this to my people makes me unwilling to help serve as a bridge to getting what you want.

It makes me wonder if some [white] people who purport to support gay marriage do in fact support it as they spend so much time demonizing folks they will never reach instead of building alliances with folk who are on their side.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 1:49 pm ¶
Versai wrote:

For anyone upset by the word “humbly” – I’m curious. How should people who want to persuade others to vote in a particular way approach others? Demand that they vote a certain way? Threaten?

We see that ignoring a group–or assuming that you will have their vote because they were oppressed too, etc–and throwing a tantrum when you discover that you didn’t have that vote… well, let’s just say that approach didn’t work so well.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 1:56 pm ¶
Megan wrote:

I find this mentality that people who are members of various minority groups have “stick together” no matter the circumstances a little frightning. Minorities aren’t homogenous. Throwing us into one group and expecting us to support any and everything another minority group is facing without even thinking is insulting. As an African American Evangelical Christian, I will not compromise my religious beliefs to endorse something that I believe is sinful. Just because I am a double minority (Black female) why should I support gay marriage? It’s like saying that just because I am a woman, I should be required to support abortion, like thats the only way to support women’s rights. I also take offense to the throwing around of the word “homophobe”. It seems that anyone that opposes gay marriage is a “homophobe”. I think people should really reconsider the meaning of the word before using it so liberally. “Phobe” means fear. I am not afraid of gays. I simply don’t support gay marriage. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. My religious beliefs will always guide my moral compass, and I shouldn’t be labeled as a “hompphobe” for that. Are there any other people of faith who have thoughts on this issue? I truly believe that you can “hate the sin and not the sinner.” I have my own demons to struggle with which is why I am not judging, but don’t understand why I would be expected to support something that is not in line with my religious and moral beliefs.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 2:27 pm ¶
fran wrote:

It annoys me when people refer to Donnie McClurkin as homophobic. I have never heard him say anything that would qualify as such. Specifically, I have heard him speak about his own personal experiences which should not be discounted because others disagree with his lifestyle. I’m not even saying whether I agree with his point of view. I just believe that he should not be labeled homophobic (whatever that word means these days) because of his personal experiences and because other people share those experiences.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 2:49 pm ¶
CrzyCatDC wrote:

@Rob Schmidt

Really? Oppose gays? What a ridiculous straw man argument. If I read the post correctly, this is about Proposition 8 a.k.a. gay marraige and not whether an entire group of people who happen to identify as part of the same race “opposes” the existence of an entire group of people who happen to share a sexual orientation. The two things are far from one and the same. If you’re going to join in on the discussion…and be the first to post!…at least contribute in a productive way.

And fyi, as with all statistics for that matter, polls can be twisted to fit anyone’s view point.

@monstermash

The primary issue was that the GLBT community chose to actively perform outreach in many communities, but not very much in the Black community, esp. the Black religious community.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 3:02 pm ¶
cb3n wrote:

Method:

I think you miss the implication of Mucus’ data. To me the question isn’t whether or not you can separate black church goers from black non-church goers, the question is why are we making race the dividing line at all? Why aren’t we arguing over whether or not religious people are more homophobic than secular? Or (using Jess’ point) talking about how people with college degrees are queer friendly while people without them obviously hate gays? There are so many different ways to dissect the population that showed up to vote on Prop 8 that day that singling out just one group and uniformly calling them homophobic is absurd. Using that logic, and had anyone taken the time to measure it, we could probably figure out if people who double knot their shoe laces hate gay people more than people who wear sandals. Unfortunately, CNN, MSNBC and Fox News thought it was more of a juicy story to talk about the results in terms of race than in terms of footwear preferences and they stirred the pot and suddenly Dan Savage is making more absurd proclamations, this time about how non white people are obviously oppressing queer folks.

The problem with the whole “black people are homophobic based on one exit poll” argument is that it’s an oversimplification that completely ignores the complexity of identity. I’ve never met anyone who was wholly defined by their race, no matter how badly the TV tries to tell me otherwise.

The other issue is that the meme also overlooks the various social and legal conditions that can affect a person’s right to vote, conditions that disproportionally apply to people of color. What about all of the convicted felons who have been stripped of their rights to vote? What about all of the folks who just didn’t vote for whatever reason? What about the people who were disenfranchised in other ways or mislead about their voting rights? Is the black voting population on any given day really even a clear measure of the black community?

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 3:06 pm ¶
Katherine wrote:

what kills is when people want to throw up percentages about how many black people voted for prop 8 versus everyone else but forget to show how many black people actually live in the state of CA versus everyone else. Aren’t latinos in the majority so that 59% versus the black voters 58% is in reality is MUCH higher but who am I to use logic. smh.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 3:09 pm ¶
Amused0472 wrote:

Apart from statistics [which can be manipulated to suggest anything], I think part of the backlash is that some gay and lesbian activists assume that because you are black and/or oppressed, you should automatically identify with the cause of marriage rights for gays and lesbians. That assumption is a fallacy. While some blacks may not oppose a gay lifestyle necessarily, some might oppose a law that says marriage is anything other than a state/religious sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman. Assuming any race is monolithic in its thoughts, agendas, or politics is just a lazy thought process. I think the key to advancing marriage for same-sex couples is education and strong legal arguments.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 3:42 pm ¶
k. emvee wrote:

Megan,

Honestly, it comes down to civil rights. How many folks claimed interracial marriage was against their religious beliefs and inner moral compass?

I am all for religious differences and embrace my conservative Christian friends happily. What I don’t embrace is people stepping on my civil rights, regardless of their demographics. Then it becomes about more than someone’s personal moral compass. It suddenly is about being a second-class citizen with fewer rights and protections under the law than my fellow straight Americans.

And no, it’s not about race. I don’t think that Black people are more or less homophobic or heterocentric than anyone else. For me, it’s about figuring out how to increase tolerance and inclusiveness across the board.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 3:47 pm ¶
wendi muse wrote:

to respond to what commenter megan wrote above, i have to say that the difference between allowing same sex marriage vs. allowing one to behave in a manner than runs counter to religious beliefs is the following: if you kill, rob, rape, or assault someone, you are committing a non-consensual act that robs one of his/her personal freedoms, to exist unharmed and with their property in tact. however, same sex marriage does not involve violating any of those freedoms. you may not agree with it for yourself, but as for others, we (being human beings) should be allowed to do things as we see fit so long as we don’t affect others in a negative way. it’s like outlawing people from wearing purple pants or listening to celine dion. yay, i may not like either of those, but i have no right to tell others not to do it bc they doing it on their own without harming anyone…literally.

if we made every legal decision based solely on religious beliefs, we’d end up like saudi arabia, and even then, they still have laws that are basic laws, not related to religion.

while i often hear arguments about gay marriage not belonging in a church, then i say allow gay marriage by the state and leave it up to the churches to decide if they want to have said ceremonies there are not.

i don’t necessarilythink people who are against gay marriage are homophobes, but i do think they are distoring the idea of rule of law and making it entirely relative and personal when laws should relate to society as a whole, not necessarily one’s personal religious beliefs.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 3:53 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:

@cb3n
“To me the question isn’t whether or not you can separate black church goers from black non-church goers, the question is why are we making race the dividing line at all? Why aren’t we arguing over whether or not religious people are more homophobic than secular?… There are so many different ways to dissect the population that showed up to vote on Prop 8 that day that singling out just one group and uniformly calling them homophobic is absurd. Using that logic, and had anyone taken the time to measure it, we could probably figure out if people who double knot their shoe laces hate gay people more than people who wear sandals.”

Cosign. Beautifully put.

I appreciate Monica’s post in that it opened the door for such intelligent back and forth about this issue. Thanks Monica, Mucus, method, cb3n.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 4:01 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:

@wendi muse
“if we made every legal decision based solely on religious beliefs, we’d end up like saudi arabia, and even then, they still have laws that are basic laws, not related to religion.”

I wish you would find a way to make your larger point (about which we agree) without reflexively demonizing a Middle Eastern culture. The fallacy of projecting our fears on to an “othered’ culture is the point of this post in the first place–using Saudi Arabia this way amplifies this problem, it doesn’t solve it.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 4:06 pm ¶
Luis wrote:

To be honest, as a Latino I’ve always wondered why people were taking issue with the 59% of Latinos, who make up 17% of the state, who voted for Prop 8. That’s your real stumbling block. In fact, turning this solely on African Americans, who would need to vote at least 3/4 No (more than whites or Asians were willing to do) in order to swing the vote, smacks of the same old racism. It reminds me of when people call the L.A. riots a black riot, when Latinos were a majority. I guess I should feel bad about airing out “my own people,” (not really, I’m a N.Y. Dominican and Cali Latinos are mostly Mexican), but I’d rather people looked at the facts and took issue with the right group instead of blaming blacks time and again for anything negative they’re involved in even when they only make up a minority of the offending group.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 4:19 pm ¶
Luis wrote:

Also, Megan, that’s a great argument for why people should be allowed to marry in your Church. It has nothing to do with the institution of civic marriage, which is secular and carries no religious meaning. Please learn to separate the two in your mind, asap.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 4:21 pm ¶
imnotemily wrote:

Megan,
It might be comforting to some to reduce the word ‘homophobia’ to its etymological roots, but this is disingenuous. It’s not just about a “fear of homosexuals”- it is about bigotry, discrimination, and the denial of rights. It’s about hatred, it’s about privilege. If you can take that definition and still not label yourself a homophobe, fine. Just please don’t use an outdated, overly-literal definition for the word.
-a sinner.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 4:38 pm ¶
[dave] wrote:

@Megan: Semantically deconstructing the word “homophobic” (or biphobic or transphobic) isn’t going to solve anything. The word is used to describe bigoted behaviour and attitudes towards folks because of their sexuality or gender identity. and as for the rest of it, k. emvee explained why your religious mentality doesn’t jibe with my way of seeing the world.

@Monica Roberts: I find some of your anecdotes to draw away from your central point, which is that focusing on the “black people are homophobic” meme is one more thing that makes GLBT black folks invisible in society/media/etc. For me I feel better actually picking apart the statistics like some commenters gave done, and then putting the emotional response in context with events. But either way, thanks for starting the conversation.

@folks who take umbrage with the idea of being asked to be “humble”: I’d (humbly) suggest leaving the language alone. Give the writer a safe space, engage with the issues not the language. Because folks have a right to be angry sometimes.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 4:44 pm ¶
Elusis wrote:

FWIW, the Mormon church did a good job, in the Bay Area, of making their POC members the public face of the Yes on 8 campaign, particuparly API folks in Oakland. Every night for weeks there was a core group of POC out waving signs and yelling at cars, including some pretty foul stuff from some of the younger folks. There was a very sad video online of one of the pro-8 protesters shouting at a woman “nasty, nasty, nasty!” and then actually hitting her with a sign when she asked them why they were in favor of 8 passing.

The “No on 8″ folks were incredibly poor in their (utter lack of a) strategy for reaching out to POC. They concentrated on mobilizing their safe, largely white base and gave the distinct impression that they regarded the heavily *Latino and Asian* areas of California as useless to try and organize.

But the pro-8 forces were quite smart about getting POC out there to do their dirty work.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 4:56 pm ¶
loryn wrote:

i think the discussion of who’s “more” homophobic is silly anyway

why are we keeping score on who’s more oppressive than whom?

isn’t that counter productive?

it could be.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 5:16 pm ¶
Megan wrote:

I’m really glad I posted. I knew that I would get some insightful answers. I want to try to steer back to my original question though. Whether or not you believe gays should marry in the church is going to differ based on a lot of different issues. For me the issue is not what the “church” says. It’s what the Bible says and to me that is the final authority. Clearly we’re going to be on two different pages (in two different books actually! lol) if you don’t believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and the final authority, we can only go back and forth so many times. With that being said let me steer it back. My question is when do I draw the line? Do my personal experiences as a Black female in this country make mean that I should automatically support something that I don’t believe is right? If so, can anyone see the problems that arise from this? As minorities we are continuing to view ourselves through the eyes of the majority. It’s like saying why are there some Jews who dismiss what slavery has done to our communities. It’s saying, why would Blacks ever fall on the conservative side of the immigration debate? Don’t they understand what its like to be “different” to “not fit in?” When will my choice be respected as my own personal choice, and not what I “oughta do or think” simply because I am Black?! That is what gets me. It goes beyond whether or not I think gay marriage should be allowed. I don’t like being put in a box and told what I should or should not support or being told (directly or indirectly) that I “oughta understand” on the basis of my own experiences with the
majority.

@imnotemily
Shall I call people who voted “no” on Prop 8, Jesusphobes? Or Bibliophobes? People seem more often than not to categorize people as soon as they find out that they are Christian. We have to be discriminating. Just like you have to be discriminating. You discriminate when you pick your friends…don’t you? There are certain people whom you choose not to hang out with based upon whatever reason. We all discriminate to a certain degree. I’m not advocating discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation. I am saying that sometimes you can’t have your cake and eat it too. With the variety of friends that I have, it would be impossible for me to even pretend to hold the same viewpoints as all of them. Is that bad or wrong? When it comes down to my religious beliefs, What God thinks at the end of the day trumps everything and everyone, that simple. If it offends someone, what can you do? You cannot please everyone and you will compromise trying to do so. What I’ve found that you CAN do however is surround yourself with people who are “other”. People who don’t look like you, think like you, praise the same God as you. Once you find something in common with a person and they get to KNOW you they are a lot less likely to name call.

Name calling (and calling people “homophobes” IS name calling) is not helpful. It’s not productive. You usually can’t have productive dialogue because you have already labeled a person something negative from the get go! And the word “sinner” will never be outdated to a Christian. It would be much more productive for both sides if people actually discussed this in a non threatening, non-assuming matter. By labeling me a homophobe…thats kind of assuming.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 5:25 pm ¶
Slush wrote:

@Megan, great question. I don’t think people want your support for gay marriage out of sympathy because of your experiences of discrimination. It might often be couched that way, but as you point out, that doesn’t always make sense. (I do think it makes sense to draw connections between different forms of oppression in many cases, but it’s certainly not automatic.) People want support for gay marriage among whites and blacks and Latinos, because it’s a question of equality for all of us. Your ability to understand the unfairness of prohibitions on gay marriage stems from you being a thinking caring human being, not from your racial background. And most people can imagine wanting to commit your life to someone you love, whoever that may be, and receive legal and social recognition of that.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 5:59 pm ¶
Slush wrote:

As for statistics…I think there is a big difference between statistical significance and actual significance.

From the reports I have seen, it appears that African Americans voted in slightly higher proportions in favor of Prop 8. Okay. I don’t think it’s useful to fight statistics when they’re straightforward. Accept them and then question whether or not they’re important, not whether or not they fit your anecdotes.

(There’s something to be said for the arguments outlined above pointing out that race is an arbitrary way to assess support for policy, and it might as well be broken down by age or number of piercings or whatever. But that still doesn’t change the data that was collected. It just points out how much white people love to blame black people for things.)

Prop 8 passed by the total votes in CA and it doesn’t seem to me that the difference between white, black, and Latino support for Prop 8 was that big. Prop 8 was slightly more popular in minority communities. Fine. It’s the extrapolation from that slight difference to the browbeating on black Americans that’s the problem, not the statistics themselves.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 6:13 pm ¶
Alyssa wrote:

@loryn, you took t he words out of my mouth.
It really isn’t helpful to say blacks, Hispanics, religious people, uneducateded people, or anyone else are more homophobic than others. Really what difference does it make?
If you are asking to see where everything went wrong, then maybe you should look at the lies that were spread by the yes on 8 campaign. I still honestly believe that Prop 8 would not have passed if people were more aware that just about everything the yes on 8 people said were lies.
@Megan, while I don’t agree with you, I understand that you think homosexuality is a sin. I also understand that this is why you feel the need to try to stop it. BUt please keep in mind the following things: 1. Keeping gay marriage illegal will not stop this “sin” 2. Just because you vote for gay marriage doesn’t mean that you endorse it. It just means that you are willing to let other people live their lives the way they want to. 3. Worshiping other Gods is also against your religion (in fact it is commandment 1- gay marriage isn’t in the commandments at all) why not outlaw other religions? Eating meat on Fridays during lent is against the Catholic religion, why not outlaw that? 4. Most Americans believe that we should be free to live our lives the way we want, so long as we are not harming anyone else. If you agree with this, the only way you can really be against legalizing gay marriage is if you think gay marriage is harming other people. And if you really honesly look at what proponents of gay marriage are asking (research the yes on 8 lies) you will find that it isn’t harming anyone.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 6:20 pm ¶
Alyssa wrote:

@Megan
Sorry I posted that last one before I saw your most recent post. I actually agree with you in the idea that just because you are black / woman or anything other marginalized group means you should think a certian way. I also think it is very much your right to see homosexuality as a sin. Heck it is your church’s right to refuse to marry homosexual couples (why not, churches often only marry people if they are both the same religion). But like I said before, you can vote for gay marriage, and still think it’s wrong. Voting for gay marriage is just saying that you don’t think you have the right to tell others how to live their lives. Just as people don’t have the right to tell your church they have to marry gay people, (you and) your church don’t have the right to tell others they can’t.
As slush wrote, it’s not a matter of being black. It’s a matter of being human.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 6:51 pm ¶
imnotemily wrote:

@Megan,

I was very careful in what I wrote to not label you a homophobe, and I sincerely meant it. I don’t know you, who am I to put that label on you? What I was saying is that I am all for an open dialogue, but I believe words, especially ones of grave importance like ‘homophobe’, should be used correctly.
I do surround myself with people of varying opinions and beliefs, and I cherish them for those reasons. I am not sure what that has to do with this discussion though… that I am obligated to spend my time with people who see me as a sinner? That because I am choosy about who I am friends with that other people voting yes on Prop 8 is ok? I am a little lost in your reasoning, could you clarify?
Also- you asked if someone who voted no to Prop 8 could be seen as a bibliophobe. Again, this is illogical- Prop 8 was one large group (some Christians and others) deciding the personal lives of one other group (queers). Yet- same-sex marriage impacts no one but queers. If I voted No, I wasn’t taking away a straight Christian’s right to practice, or to even marry, but I was trying to gain rights for a gay. And that’s the irony- as a queer person who knows what it’s like to have my rights impinged upon, I would never attempt to take away someone else’s personal rights, including a Christians.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 7:35 pm ¶
BSK wrote:

imnotemily-

First, I want to state from the start that I am in favor of marriage-equality rights. I do not want my post here to be misconstrued in anyway.

Second, I have to defend Meghan here. Not her point of view regarding same-sex marriage. Rather, with how she is defining the debate. From her eyes, that is how it is defined. You are defining it from your eyes (and I agree with you), but you can’t simply ignore the way in which the other side views it. To people on the other side of the debate, often times it is not a debate about civil rights. It is a debate about morality. You say that Meghan can’t define anti-prop-8ers as bibliophobic because their rights are not in jeopardy. But, from their perception, that is exactly what is happening. I am not saying this is right or true. I openly disagree with that perspective. But you cannot simply deny the perspective, perceptions, and feelings on the other side of the debate. That is why conversations surrounding this issue (and many others) often go no where. As Meghan states, her believes are informed by her church and, more specifically, her religion. There are many religious arguments that could be used to argue in favor of marriage rights. These are the only ones that would be effective with someone who holds a worldview like Meghan’s. So rather than throw around misplaced terms like homophobic or simply shoot down her perspective, if you really want to change minds, you often have to meet people where they are, not where you want them to be.

Again, I do not agree with Meghan’s ideas, but I do understand the mindset from which they are derived. Her ideas are not outlandish. There are many people in favor of Prop 8 who do so for ridiculous, homophobic. Meghan does not seem to be one of them, and should not be lumped in with those people and viewed the same way.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 8:13 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:

Whether or not you believe gays should marry in the church is going to differ based on a lot of different issues. For me the issue is not what the “church” says. It’s what the Bible says and to me that is the final authority.

Megan, I think this is where the confusion lies. Nobody is going to make the pastor do anything. Ironically, those who would be on the front lines condemning such State interference in religious affairs merely request the same in return.

Marriage is not-for most- about the Bible, the Church or Christianity. There are those who, in their ways, live the words of the Bibles (there are several). The issue is the civil aspect. Legal and societal recognition (doesn’t mean that you personally have to like it) of relationship status. Voting against legal recognition of gay marriage imposes the religious beliefs of some on a civil institution. Not only does that violate the doctrine of separation of church and state, it actually imposes a sect preference on civil institutions.

I see tourists that look like Little House on the Prairie all the time. Do I think modesty necessarily calls for 19th century clothing? It doesn’t jibe with my beliefs, but I fail to see any actual societal harm.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 8:52 pm ¶
crazybones wrote:

“I’m not advocating discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation.”

@ Megan —

I think it’s really important to define the differences between religious and civil laws/rules. We’ve mentally combined the two, where religion is concerned, so we think that generally if a marriage is religiously ok, it’s civilly ok as well.

But the real issue is the “generally” part. They’re really two completely separate circumstances.
Religious groups can, and do, make rules about what their members should/shouldn’t do. And if a person doesn’t agree to uphold those standards, they can be prevented from marrying within that church.

For example, a religious group can refuse to marry you in that faith if you and your spouse are of different creeds, or if you will not raise your child in the faith of your church, if you are not willing to have children, if you are not a virgin, if you do not pay tithes or attend regularly. These, and many other reasons can prevent a couple from getting a marriage sanctified within a particular church. And so they lose the spiritual/social benefits of being married within that church.

However, the benefits/rights of being married within a given religion don’t translate across faiths: the spiritual gain I’d get from being married as a Catholic may not be validated if I joined, say, the Mormon Church — the faiths are different, the rules are different, and the expectations are different. And a non-religious marriage shows an even greater discord: a marriage at the Justice of the Peace is legal, but spiritually the same as living in sin (because it’s not a marriage within a church.)

But a civil, legal marriage is altogether different from a religious one. The requirements aren’t to have a certain set of practices or beliefs, but to be a citizen of the appropriate age to both independently own property, and to sign into a legal contract that stipulates the handling of that property. In this case, it’s the 4- fold property of the spouse: their assets, their name, the property of their body and of anything created from the combination of that property (money, children, land, etc.) It’s their stuff. This is fundamentally different from the point of (most) religious marriages, which is to reinforce the sense of a particular community of believers, by the public statement that these two people are now acting in tandem.

The benefits/privileges of a civil marriage aren’t of a spiritual sort, but they are of a social sort: the right for your union to be recognized by every court of law in the nation. And they are primarily of the legal sort: these include the right to act as proxy on your spouse’s behalf (for themselves and their property), the right to automatically inherit, the right to treat them as a dependent (for insurance), the right to make health care decisions for them when they are incapacitated.

These rights, and all of the ones given by a legal marriage are recognized in every state. So while a Catholic marriage isn’t given the same spiritual status as the Mormon one (from either side), or even from different sects within a faith, regardless of location, your ability to see your spouse while in hospital, or to hold money in the same account is recognized everywhere. This is where preventing gay marriage on religious grounds is discrimination: it’s a lowering, not of their spiritual benefits, but their legal ones.

The easiest example and hot topic right now is immigration. If my husband is from France, I can, as an American, petition for citizenship. I can bring him here, to live with me. But it I were a lesbian, my partner would not have the right to be in this country with me and could be deported. And a marriage in the states that permit it doesn’t protect her: right now the recognition of gay marriage is state to state, but immigration law is federal, and nationwide. This is unlike “straight” marriage, which is recognized nationwide (so if 15 is the marrying age in Nebraska, but it’s 18 in New York, you’re not going to jail after crossing state lines.)

So there is a valid case to say that preventing gay marriage is discrimination, because it 1) violates the ability for legal recognition across states in the way that straight marriage does and 2) because it prevents people from entering in this kind of legal contract on the basis of sexual orientation. I know people want marriage to be about love, and faith, but ultimately, the contractual part of marriage — the document itself, is a document about property.

This was long, long. But the point is: it’s important to understand that combining religious stipulation with legal process here, is actually bad for -everyone-: do you really want to have to live to the doctrine of any particular faith before you are permitted to handle your own property?

The ability of gay people to marry will in no way alter a church’s ability to restrict a religiously-recognized marriage to people it deems appropriate members (they are not currently forced to do so now, even though churches make these restriction all of the time.)

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 8:59 pm ¶
Megan wrote:

@imnotemily
I was a little long winded so let me clarify. When I wrote that people should surround themselves with ppl of varying viewpoints, I am saying that when you do so you are less likely to label someone a “homophobe” without knowing anything about the person except that they don’t agree with gay marriage.

As far as not having your rights infringed upon, this debate will continue forever. Same sex marriage DOES impact people other than gays. It’s so much more complex than people realize. What if I decide to send my children to public school? Public schools in order to be “fair” will have to teach my kids that families come in all shapes, sizes, and can sometimes be same-gendered. My child when learning about sex education will be told that it is normal and okay for two females or two males to have sex together. That is not okay. This is why I disagree with your statement that same sex marriage impacts no one but queers. Marriage is sacred. And I will be the first to admit that straight people don’t see it that way. And I can understand why it seems unfair with the divorce rate as high as it is, and celebrities getting married on a whim and getting divorced the next day. But marriage IS sacred to me. It IS between a man and a woman only. I support civil unions and benefits for same sex couples. The exact same benefits in fact. The issue I have is over the word marriage b/c it means something very important to me. Clearly not to all people, as divorce in the church is just as high (if not higher) than in the secular world. But nonetheless, two women and two men will never be a marriage in the eyes of God.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 8:59 pm ¶
Nathan wrote:

Why does this all sound like a variation on oppression olympics? The black community has people across the spectrum for support or opposition to these issues, and it doesn’t seem to be a particularly effective point of reference for rallying support. And when you consider that the racial breakdown showed, really, very similar levels of support, that doesn’t sound like the avenue you would want to take.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 9:47 pm ¶
crazybones wrote:

I should have given the cliffnotes version:

Basically, if 2 Mormons get married in a Catholic ceremony, that marriage isn’t a valid Mormon marriage, and vice versa. Their spiritual rights don’t transfer, and their is no court of civil law that can alter this.

But if 2 New Yorkers sign a marriage contract in Maine, their legal rights follow them wherever they go. And to refuse people from signing a contract about their ability to dispose of property based solely on their sexual orientation is to put a stipulation in effect that has nothing to do with the situation. Unincarcerated, mentally competent adults of any orientation/presentation are in legal ownership of their person, their name, their issue and their items. So restricting them from choosing their legal proxy or heir (which is what a legal spouse is) by the same standards that straight people do is discrimination.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 9:49 pm ¶
Maus wrote:

“Liberals are the *true* racists/bigots/violent/rapists/blah blah blah” is a classic Conservative ploy.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 9:49 pm ¶
A Cumberbatch wrote:

@ Megan – I think where you draw the line is recognizing the separation between church and state. The issue of gay marriage is larger than what you have reduced it to in arguing “my church shouldn’t have to perform gat marriages”.
Nothing about the state recognizing gay marriages required your church, or any other to perform said marriages.
We may have gotten off track years ago by not making a distinction between civil unions and “marriage” as other countries have done. Instead we’ve used the same term for both the State recognition and the Church ceremony and have conducted very little education explaining the difference between the two.
At any rate I respect your beliefs and your wish to live a moral life as dictated by those beliefs but consider this … my religious beliefs and my church support gay marriage. So do your religious beliefs trump mine? More importantly, do either of our religious beliefs trump the State and the constitutional right to equal treatment under the law?
IMO arguing that support of gay marriage equals requiring your church to perform them in contradiction of the edicts of the church is a strawman argument at best and pretty unhelpful to the discussion at large.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 10:20 pm ¶
[dave] wrote:

@Megan: Your second post made it really clear that you want to have a conversation, so thanks for that and thanks for sticking around. I myself think that I need to vote to empower folks to make their own decisions in their own lives in as many places as possible. I try to apply this to as many areas as I can.

So unless folks are causing harm to others, I try to empower them to do their thing. Whether those actions come under what I personally agree with is another story.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 10:41 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

Mod Note

And fin.

This conversation needs to be about race, the GLBT community, prop 8, and statistics, not the morality of gay marriage. I let folks say their piece, but just to be clear – in THIS space, we’re all about supporting GLBTQ PoCs whatever they are advocating for. There are GLBTQ PoCs who are pro-marriage rights, there are GLBTQ PoCs who think that the marriage fight is distracting from other issues that are more pressing.

Either way, we’re not debating morality. Further comments in this vein will be deleted. – LDP

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 10:48 pm ¶
crazybones wrote:

I think the big hurdle to convincing POC to not support Prop 8 was how the issue was framed.

I’m not in Ca, but the biggest argument I heard against Prop 8 was the comparison with interracial marriage. I don’t think this is the best argument: not that it’s an untrue correlation, just a weak one. I just don’t know that as a nation, people really fought that hard for interracial marriage. If you could be killed for even looking at a White woman during Jim Crow, the concept of marrying her was pretty far-fetched. And I think that White males still had the privilege of their gender, so they could have a relationship w/a Black woman and not be forced to legitimize it.

So I think that with limited funds, time and access, the civil rights argument was a poor use of resources. And it really misses the point that is relevant to the PoC communities, which is the strong affiliation that people have with their churches.

I think that for many PoC, historically, the church was the one place where they were valued, and could band together in a way that was less targeted by the mainstream. You don’t see many PoC trade unions, or long-standing business groups, but the churches have been well-established centers of community, resources and power, for a very long time.

But to say that Religious Views are like an umbrella that covers the issue prevents the unmasking of how different churches and religions are -different-. And it ignores the fact that any religious group can legally (by religious and civil law) dictate behavior of it’s member that in a way that the State can’t do to her citizens under the authority of civil law.

And I think this is where PoC weren’t targeted effectively by the no-Prop 8 voters. Because while PoC may have strong, but varied feelings in terms of their faiths, most people (regardless of color) have a common understanding of the ways that their communities have been historically disenfranchised by the dominant power structure. So to talk about what it means to own property, and who gets to dictate how that property is held (and who gets to take it) is a much more concrete, and powerful statement to make. And I don’t think it implies that PoC are a homogeneous group, but that as a nation, we’re balancing individual rights with institutional governance, and that generally people have concerns that the balance is properly maintained.

And it’s also really powerful to talk about the privileges /responsibilities of membership – both as a citizen of a state/nation, and that of a member in good standing of a church. Because these spheres really don’t overlap, when they’re pulled out into the light of day.

So I don’t know that it even needs to go as far as homophobia (although I’m not denying that it’s there) but I think when people are unclear as to what rights are/not being discussed, and especially where those rights come from, then it’s easy to think of their legal rights/restrictions as being identical to their religious ones (even though they’re not.)

I think that the pro-Prop 8 were very well organized, and targeted people at their fears. This requires knowing what people are worried about, and putting a ton of resources into crafting a message that leverages that knowledge. It’s an effective tactic across the board, regardless of the issue at hand.

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 11:40 pm ¶
crazybones wrote:

@ the mod,

actually, I’m not sure if my last comment was ok, given the mod note – I just wanted to talk about how framing the issue for different audiences influences can have a strong effect on whether or not the issue gets adopted. If it was not ok, then I apologize (and can this current comment be deleted (take pity on me, I’m newish to the board!)

Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 11:46 pm ¶
Angel wrote:

First of all, as a black person who supports LGBT rights, I am offended by the black homophobia meme, especially since it is based on flawed logic. Not only does it not control for other factors (i.e. religiosity) in its conclusion, but the very information it is based on is flawed. Exit polls do not represent all California blacks let alone all blacks in the country. There was an interesting entry on Daily Kos about this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/7/34645/1235

I have heard some blacks express dismay at comparing the gay rights movement to the black civil rights. I don’t know how common this is, but it seems to me that some black people fear that such comparisons will detract from their own continuing struggle for equality. I’ve seen this attitude among many different types of minorities, that admitting the injustice of other populations will somehow trivialize their own injustices. It’s as though civil rights and equality are viewed as a zero-sum game (and even many whites suggest that raising the boats of minorities takes away from their rights). This is a problem because it leads to infighting and submits to divide and conquer politics.

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 12:27 am ¶
BSK wrote:

Latoya, to be fair, I think this debate is exactly what is at the heart of the issue. Meghan is a PoC who opposes gay marriage and has articulated her viewpoint on why. Her viewpoint is one we often attribute to white conservative Christians, but clearly is not limited to that group, so I think it is important to see/hear this viewpoint articulated by a PoC and understand the way in which it functions within that community. I don’t know that shutting down this segment of the conversation will lead us towards a better understanding of “race, the GLBT community, prop 8, and statistics.”

Just my two cents.

Mod Note – No. Meghan has articulated her point, and we don’t do political/religious conversions/interventions on this site. She said her piece, others have said theirs, we’re not going in circles about this. Go work that out on a religious board or a politics board. Just like I’m not interested in rehashing Israel/Palestine on every thread about Muslims and Jews, I’m not interested in discussing morality/religion here. Keep the conversation on race, perception, and statistics. – LDP

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 6:44 am ¶
Jess wrote:

Something everybody here should read is on fivethirtyeight.com here:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html

Here’s the thing: Nate Silver talks about numbers, not race, and actual results.

(I know it’s easy to say “statistics can be manipulated to show anything” but there is a difference between statistically significant and not, and whether one is cherry-picking or not, and whether a certain correlation is happenstance or not. But the difference isn’t always obvious. Silver is one of the best a presenting the numbers in a way that us non-statisticians can understand and use).

For those too lazy to hit the link, Silver’s point is that anti-gay marriage initiatives are actually getting harder to pass every year. Note the minority population of the state doesn’t really seem to matter. (After all, Iowa is one of the whitest states in the country, Massachusetts is much less so).

There were several reasons prop 8 passed, and some of it was the LGBT community getting caught flat-footed. It happens — sometimes the other side does better organizing and messaging. So you learn and move on and do better next time.

I also think there’s sometimes a lack of perspective. I don’t love Dan Savage all the time, for instance, but I can kind of understand why he’d be pissed off, and he seems to have bought the idea that black voters were the tipping point. ANd honestly, not being from California myself, (and having lived there a while back) I was surprised to learn that black voters were such a small part of the population there. I don’t think it excuses some things he’s said, but we can understand where they come from.

Similarly, I can understand why many PoC get irritated that gay people say their oppression is anything like theirs, for all kinds of historical reasons. I’d be a little irritated too.

This is the kind of thing that will, I hope, enable those who care about marriage equality to do better outreach. A good friend of mine used to work at the ACLU on just this issue– he mentioned that if you approached AAs with the concept of fairness, and framed it that way, then even the churchgoers could have been convinced to oppose it, and that might have taken the edge of the Mormon Church’s messaging.

But it all starts with manning up and admitting that you screwed up and got hammered for it. That’s politics.

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 8:30 am ¶
wendi muse wrote:

joseph
(trying not to derail this post, i swear), my intention was not to demonize or other saudia arabia and/or middle eastern culture. i was stating a fact that saudi law relies mainly on religion, which i consider a bad thing. i would use a western country as an example if one existed, but it does not. we have seen the misuse of secular law in the west, without a doubt, but i was discussing law based primarily on religion, which dominates in saudi arabia (And iran as well, though i feel in a slightly (slightly slightly slightly) less restrictive way… saudi arabia came to mind primarily because of its use of religious law to limit the behavior and rights of women and lgbt folks.

so with that said, no, i don’t want the u.s. to end up like saudia arabia, in using religion to dictate law, as i feel it’s a dangerous route to go down. secular law in itself can be effed, god forbid we add religion to it. it only gets worse (Example: saudia arabia…in its use of religion to legislate personal freedoms).

it’s like if i said, i don’t want to use fascism as a government model because i don’t want to end up like nazi germany…not demonizing germans, but talking about a legal and govt system that does not sit well with me…

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 10:25 am ¶
Zahra wrote:

@wendi muse

Can you see that using an analogy between Saudi Arabia and Nazi Germany undercuts your claim that you’re not trying to demonize a culture?

I think Joseph’s original critique of your post was on point. I don’t see why you need to use SA as an example, anyway; can’t you just say that you don’t want to live under a theocracy? That point’s plenty strong to stand on its own.

And I think there are plenty of Western examples that would actually be better analogies, since you’re talking about a specific law that would curtail specific rights rather than a wholesale legal system–like the UK not allowing Catholics to vote for much of the 19th century, for example.

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 12:02 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:

@wendi muse
I don’t want to derail this thread either, so let’s not.

You don’t know enough about Sharia law to use it as an example in this thread. Dragging Saudi Arabia into this argument, which has nothing at all to do with the Middle East, is more than a little bit of stretch. And the only way to make these pieces fit together is through a series of Orientalist assumptions… So I’ll ask again if you could make your point another way.

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 12:28 pm ¶
Megan wrote:

@ Latoya,

This is my last piece. I truly was not trying to derail the conversation. I have to say that I was a little disappointed in your comment that “in THIS space, we’re all about supporting GLBTQ PoCs whatever they are advocating for”. So…if I don’t support GLBTQ PoC leaders or gay marriage, I can’t post? I could see if my post consisted of the non original theme, gay + marriage = bad and sinful. But… I’m not that kind of person. I may be conservative on certain issues, but I take pride in the fact that I can relate with anyone at any time and have a meaningful conversation with them, and not even prosthelytize while doing it! In fact my views regarding gay marriage wasn’t even my main point, though people did seem to comment on it a lot. (Maybe ppl did not expect someone of an opposing viewpoint to post? I don’t know.) If this is true (that I need to be a GLBTQ lifestyle supporter ) , its exactly why people of different mindsets don’t reach out. If everyone on the board comes from the same mindset, what is the point of debate. And I don’t mean debate that name calls and tears people down. I am referring to the type of debate that won’t change people’s minds, but will make them think “Hm. I never thought of that.” I’ve enjoyed the responses I’ve gotten and they’ve made me think. I may not change m y mind, but I consider the various arguments that I’ve heard. I’ve read many different blogs and a lot of the comments are quite similar. What type of conversation can be carried out if everyone thinks the same way? If my intention was to debate the “morality” of gay marriage, I would n’t have posted on racialicious. My main question to other readers of this blog was when do minorities stop being expected to bind together? We have varying viewpoints, and by not acknowledging those viewpoints we tend to start seeing ourselves just as the majority sees us. I see it like this. It’s like the first day of school for the new black kid in an an all white town. The principal pairs him up with the only other minority in the whole school, so what if he’s Latino? They must have something in common, right? They should stick together. Nevermind their experiences of POC’s in this country are totally different. Similarities around being the “other” perhaps. But still DIFFERENT.

In order to ask my question, it did require a little bit of background and quick explanation. My original question was this “Do my personal experiences as a Black female in this country make mean that I should automatically support something that I don’t believe is right? If so, can anyone see the problems that arise from this?” I think that question is completely in line with the story but I’m not arguing with you since you are the moderator. Just be mindful that someone who doesnt’ agree with the subject matter at hand can still contribute and may actually be excited that she in a space where she can have meaningful dialogue with other readers. without being labeled a “homophobe”. Thanks.

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 12:52 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@Megan –

I was aware of your intent. That’s why I let your post through, while I deleted others. And that’s why my initial mod note was addressed to everyone on the board.

I shut down conversations when people are talking past each other or arguing in circles. So, while you were making one point , people were having a different discussion based on some of the background information you gave. It’s not productive.
I appreciate your engagement throughout the thread.

@The room –

Speaking more generally, some of you need to keep in mind how many conversations go the same way. This is why I ask that people stay more or less on topic – we’ve heard all this stuff before. I’m not interested in debating morality because there is no winner, it’s just circles of argument. One person may change their mind – but then what? Do I have to have the same conversation every single time someone brings up a point that’s been thought of a thousand times before? If you wanted to engage on that specific piece of this issue – the morality, or the choice of the term homophobe – you could engage on Monica’s site, a GLBTQ site, or other places that are devoted to those kinds of conversations.

Here, we talk about race.

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 1:17 pm ¶
wendi muse wrote:

ok. i see your point(S). bad example. i don’t want to live in a theocracy…bc/ i feel that the combination of religion and politics/govt can be dangerous, whatever time, location, and epoch in which it may take place.

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 1:18 pm ¶
DMoon wrote:

To be honest, as a Latino I’ve always wondered why people were taking issue with the 59% of Latinos, who make up 17% of the state, who voted for Prop 8. That’s your real stumbling block. In fact, turning this solely on African Americans, who would need to vote at least 3/4 No (more than whites or Asians were willing to do) in order to swing the vote, smacks of the same old racism. It reminds me of when people call the L.A. riots a black riot, when Latinos were a majority. I guess I should feel bad about airing out “my own people,” (not really, I’m a N.Y. Dominican and Cali Latinos are mostly Mexican), but I’d rather people looked at the facts and took issue with the right group instead of blaming blacks time and again for anything negative they’re involved in even when they only make up a minority of the offending group.

****************************************
I think that this is an important point. I always why it is so much easier to attack Black people for everything. Recall that AZ and FL had similar initiatives that were shot down and guess what the largest minority voters were Hispanic and due to religious views strongly voted against it. No outcry from Dan Savage et al and the Gay White brigade about Latino homophobia. Blacks are blamed for the credit bubble and everything else, so I was not surprised at the White Gay contingency’s self righteousness and their self entitlement creeping out.

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 1:43 pm ¶
I'vehadEnough!!!! wrote:

I guess when it comes to viewpoints like Megan, we will simply have to wait until that groupthink loses its sway over american politics. Enough ppl are waking up the the BiaS.

The bible can be your final authority, fine. Lots of ppl cant stand me for biblical reasons. And you can bet I wont let it be the final authority on anyone else’s life, so long as it keeps them from their civil liberties.

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 2:33 pm ¶
Dee Galloway wrote:

…the question is why are we making race the dividing line at all?

You’re kidding, right? It’s happening because framing civil rights arguments in terms of race is what the current dominant (white) American culture has always done. The fact that one is gay does not make one immune from abusing the power of privilege.

The fallacy of projecting our fears on to an “othered” culture is the point of this post in the first place…

I agree completely, that this is the point of the post. I also believe that, right now, as marginalized peoples, we’re more than justified in fearing the dominant culture. I believe that right now, “projecting” our fears onto the dominant culture is not only valid, but vital to our continued survival. The passage of Prop 8 makes it clear that members of the dominant culture are working very, very hard to maintain dominance. They are sorely afraid because they feel this dominance slipping away. I believe that real change in America will not occur until we literally, not figuratively, feel each other’s pain. I believe real change will not occur until the dominant culture actually suffers some of the same negative effects and consequences of being “othered” in the same ways as do POC and other marginalized peoples in America. And I think this is precisely what happened to the white gay community, and why the knee-jerk response to Prop 8 played out against the black community (and the faith community) the way it did. White gay people, I would even go so far as to say white gay men, specifically, as as theirs is still the dominant voice within the gay community, finally began to feel what we other non-white marginalized people in America have always felt – the intense pain of systemic legal devaluation of their rights and humanity – and lo, and behold, it pissed ‘em off. And not surprisingly, they immediately began to wield the power of privileged status to racialize their pain and have it legitimized by their peers. As someone who embodies numerous marginalized identities (female, working class, black, gay, person of faith), all I can say is, “Welcome to my world, ya’ll! Do you get it yet?”The “it” I refer to is the truth that Dr. King stated:“Until all of us are free, then none of us are free, and injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Trying to help my various communities understand and examine the complexities and intersections of our oppressions is what much of my work in diversity education is all about. Sadly, as clearly evidenced by the response to the passage of Prop 8, if we ever do find ourselves with the power to help members of the currently dominant culture feel more of our pain, I’m afraid that we marginalized peoples will NOT be immune to abuse of this power. Abuse of power is a human failing, not a racial/cultural one.

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 3:16 pm ¶
Dee Galloway wrote:

I’ve always wondered why people were[n't] taking issue with the 59% of Latinos, who make up 17% of the state [of California], who voted for Prop 8…smacks of the same old racism.

I believe it is the same old racism. Ignoring or discounting the contributions of racial subgroups, whether these contributions be construed as positive or negative, is a commonly-used tool used by those in power to maintain their dominance.

When will my choice be respected as my own personal choice, and not what I “oughta do or think” simply because I am Black?!

When race becomes a non-issue, maybe your individual choices will be respected as such. I’m of the opinion that there are two chances of this happening in my lifetime: fat and slim. Nonetheless, I work for a future where it can become true. To do otherwise is to surrender – not an option.

You usually can’t have productive dialogue because you have already labeled a person something negative from the get go! And the word “sinner” will never be outdated to a Christian.

Excuse me, but isn’t “sinner” another negative label that essentially shuts down productive dialogue? Also, in my experience as a person of faith, the term is already outdated to many, many, many Christians.

I don’t think it excuses some things [Dan Savage] said, but we can understand where they come from…. Similarly, I can understand why many PoC get irritated that gay people say their oppression is anything like theirs, for all kinds of historical reasons. I’d be a little irritated too.

Oh yes, I understand where they come from, all right. They come from the racism that is still pandemic in America, and thus is pandemic in the gay community. I’m afraid I do notunderstand why POC get irritated at the comparisons of the fight against gay and black oppressions. Nothing is lost when one oppressed group sees and articulates the similarities in their oppressions. This is where the change begins, and this is where both groups are strengthened. This is where the interwoven bars of the cage of oppression become more visible. This is a victory, not devaluation. As a black lesbian, I am a person of color, too, and the correlations are crystal clear to me. Whether we’re talking about the oppression of black people or the oppression of gay people, one of the primary things oppression is about is the suppression of human and civil rights. What I find interesting (albeit not at all surprising) is that the voices of black gay people – especially black gay people of faith – continue to be ignored and even silenced in the gay communities, in the black communities, and in the faith communities when it comes to this particular (non)issue.

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 3:25 pm ¶
Slush wrote:

@Crazybones #46 – I think that is overall a really good argument and an interesting point about how privilege/power/wealth/disenfranchisement analogies should have been a powerful part of the case against Prop 8. (Should be a bigger part of GLBT rights movement in general – not all GLBT folks are rich and white, as has been pointed out in this space innumerable times.)

However, I think the analogy to interracial marriage still holds pretty strong, because people have made the same arguments against both of them. You suggest that there wasn’t as much mobilization behind interracial marriage as behind gay marriage, which is probably true, since there were still a lot of options within your own race.

But a lot of these recurring arguments are about morality and especially taboos. Interracial marriage in the past was seen as unholy and taboo in the same way that homosexuality is now, but these days no one would ever claim that interracial marriage offends their religion. (Well, hardly anyone.) However, they sure made those arguments before, and that’s the correlation. It used to be just as sacreligious to mix breeds of humans, and plenty of religious authorities were right in the fray with that.

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 3:30 pm ¶
Jess wrote:

@Dee — I don’t think comparing oppressions loses anything either, and it can be useful. I was just trying to say I understand — even if I don’t agree.

Once you understand a little bit of why many PoC get het up (and I’ve certainly heard “white gay men are full of white privilege so can’t understand what i go through” a lot) that can only help you refine the messaging a bit and make it so the next time you come to the fight you don’t get blindsided.

And yeah, messaging is a part of it. I wish it weren’t but that’s the way life is. If we all communicated by mind-melding telepathy it would be different.

Your feeling that your voice as a black gay person of faith is being silenced is right on. When we get into the reasons for it, it gets complicated.

For instance, I could point to the very strong patriarchal religious tradition in many black churches as much as racism on the part of white gay people. After all, Dan Savage isn’t the one getting up on a pulpit and decrying your choice of who to love as a sin or going all Tyler Perry on gender roles. This doesn’t make Savage right. But it isn’t so easy for me to just say that the white gay community is a bunch of racists either. (I know you aren’t saying that, I am just using this as an example).

I’d say that many in the “mainstream” LGBT organizations don’t always have a sophisticated understanding of how race and messaging and culture plays out.

That’s why the right in this instance gave them a beat-down in the arena of public polling. They were smarter about it, they got their message out months before any LGBT organizations did, and they knew who to target. I don’t think they were going for non-white voters as an end in itself, by the way, but by doing so it made them look more inclusive and friendlier. The result? Prop 8 passes because the opposition screwed up badly.

The solution is to learn from that and to get people like you out there, to talk in terms of fairness and to show you all exist. Maybe that means showing up in churches and not letting the Mormons or whoever monopolize the discussion there, I don’t know — I’ll leave it to people who know more about black church and Latino church culture in California to work out the details. But the point is you do something to apply what you learned, you know? I can’t see that there’s any other solution.

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 4:03 pm ¶
Taryn wrote:

To Crazy Bones and Luis: Co-sign and thank you!!!!!!!

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 4:17 pm ¶
pm wrote:

Why is it so important to deny that African-Americans are, depending on how the term is defined, more homophobic that European-Americans? Why would it be so terrible if it were true? I think it probably is true and its probably to do both with the influence of (a particular form of) Christianity and with social class.

Also, in the US those two things, class and religious belief, are not really independent of each other in any case. Out of interest, how do African American attitudes to gay marriage come out when adjusted for social class? (I realise you Americans try to call just about everyone ‘middle class’, but I mean, class as the rest of the world defines it!).

But in any case, so what? How does it change anything to acknowledge that? The majority of homophobes in the US are nonetheless white (and if you ‘weight’ it by political power and wealth the white majority gets even larger).

The moral need to oppose both racism and homophobia remains unchanged, surely?

When right-wing trolls crow about ‘ya boo sucks black people are more homophobic’ why should sane people, who aren’t politically infantile, let it bother them? No one ever said political problems were simple, or that all the less privileged of the world are flawless angels who will immediately unite with each other against the powerful. If that were true all forms of oppression would have been removed a very long time ago and you’d have nothing to blog about.

What seems most significant, and positive, and more deserving of attention, about these referendum results is the break-down by age.

(To me, a far more problematic fact is the way in the US the ‘left’ is disproportionately confined to college-educated middle-class folk while many working class people support the Republicans.)

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 7:11 pm ¶
BSK wrote:

Latoya-

I see your point about some of the difficulties that arise from the way in which that conversation was going. I guess, overall, I just prefer to see a “freer” exchange on boards like this, where the conversation can move where those having the conversation direct it. I totally get that this is “your” space, so you have the final call. I was just surprised, especially since I didn’t think we completely thread-jacked and still saw a lot of value in the conversation that was going on.

PS: I don’t intend for this to go through (unless you would like to comment publicly on it), but just wanted to hit you back and wasn’t sure how. I would enjoy a personal response via email, but I get that you’re probably too busy for that. Please don’t mistake this as a criticism of the blog as a whole, because I am a big fan; just disagreeing with your philosophy on board postings. Thanks.

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 7:23 pm ¶
Melinda C wrote:

While homosexual Americans aren’t neccesarily viewed through a racial lens, these folks are still very much viewed as the “other” and suffer verbal insults, assaults and death based on their sexuality.

All minority groups deserve protection and equality. Not only does the gay community represent all races, but ontop of that – this group receives the persecution of the majority of the country.

Advancing the civil liberties of all people was the aim of the Civil Rights movement (re – Dee’s lovely quotation of Dr. King), and it seems appropriate to include the rights of sexual minorities as well. Thank you to those who are working to see that vision realized.

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 7:48 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:

Megan, there are Christians who regard permanent monogamous same-gender sexually-active relationships as OK for those who are not attracted to the opposite gender. You might be interested in a documentary “For the Bible tells me so” on gay Christians. Of course there will be disagreement on interpretation and reconciliation of various Biblical passages – as with many other topics.

The issue of same-gender civil marriage is of equal access to a legal status conferring a large number of rights and responsibilities. It has nothing whatsoever to do with opinions of various religious groups and people about the recognition of such relationships within the specific religious community. To give a very common example: Roman Catholics very commonly divorce and remarry under the civil law provisions. They can file for income tax jointly, automatically be considered appropriate proxies for medical decision making concerning a spouse incapable of consent, can inherit property after the spouse’s death without having to pay prohibitive inheritance taxes that would force the survivor out of the jointly owned house, and so on. The one thing the divorced and civilly remarried Roman Catholic cannot do is take communion in the Catholic Church.

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 8:40 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:

Oops, there was a long interval between starting and finishing #67 post – the moderator’s note hadn’t been put out yet. Sorry.

Perhaps the other side of the common white assumption that blacks are more homophobic is the common white perception that there simply lower percentage of LGBTQIA in the black population than in the white population. That perception may be fueled by 1. the equating of “out” LGBTQIA with “total” LGBTQIA 2. the representation of the black population by the most prominent black spokespeople 3. the white tendency to ignore the diversity of action and opinion within the black population.

Black LGBTQIA simply are more likely to have a harder time being “out” due to lack of race privilege (and related items such as class, education, etc, having some statistical relevance).

It’s no secret that minority community spokespeople more often than not try to highlight those individuals having characteristics regarded as desirable by the majority and general populations as well as their own community. The corollary is “don’t wash your dirty linen in public”. For that matter, majority populations do the same thing with regards to majority populations in other locations – hence all those “cultural ambassadors” during the Cold War.

Given these two factors, a not-very-logical white person might indeed conclude that there are indeed fewer black LGBTQIA people and probably fewer black people friendly to LGBTQIA people. The fallacy ought to be obvious to anyone who remembers the endless argument between LGBTQIAs and antagonistic cis, straight people – is 10% of the population LGBTQIA? 5%? 2%? What’s the agenda of the person providing the statistic? How do they define “gay” or “bi” or “trans…”? How do they sample the population about a characteristic regarded as shameful in the eyes of others or of the self? The racism involved is in part an unwillingness to consider differing needs for concealment.

Posted 08 Apr 2009 at 9:20 pm ¶
Dee Galloway wrote:

I’m desperately watching for evidence that the gay community will learn from the multiple colossal failures surrounding Prop 8, et al.

Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 2:39 am ¶
Jess wrote:

One more thing — there’s more to talking about hte “black vote” as the reason that prop 8 failed than just racism. There’s a common fallacy that appears (and many journalists are guilty of it as well as non-journalists) and it has to do with numbers. The Americans public is pretty poor at understanding them as it is.

The fallacy goes like this: If I have 100 people, and 10 are black, and 30 are Latino, and the rest are white. A vote goes through and I find 55 people vote yes and 45 vote no.

Of the black folks, 7 vote yes and 3 voted no.
Of the Latino vote, 17 vote yes and 13 vote no.
Of the white vote, 33 vote yes and 27 vote no.

So, which group was the one that put the vote “over the top” past the 50 mark? A lot of people think it’s the first, because they subtract the number of black people from the 55 total that it would take to get it under 50%. Or you do that with the Latino vote. Because a lot of folks look at the heavy support for such a measure, But that isn’t the case — move 4 votes to the no column in the black vote and it still doesn’t change the outcome.

Couple that with the heavy marketing to PoC that the Mormons did, and it’s easy to see why people attributed the prop 8 win to the black vote.

Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 8:03 am ¶
Joan wrote:

Hm. For some reason the impression that I’ve gotten from others is that there are particular racialized struggles that the black community has with GLBTQ folks that are not shared amongst whites. Tensions around the fear of shortage of “good black men,” the feeling that it’s a “white thing,” the importance of the black church, and the much popularized threat of the “DL” which, regardless of its racism and the way it played out in the media, has made an effect on the black community.

Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 10:27 am ¶
Mucus wrote:

A few have raised the hypothetical of which group put the vote over the top.

I thought this was interesting enough to consider the actual numbers from the study I previously linked to in Table 1
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf

The breakdown with a total for 52% of voters voting for Proposition 8 is (with population in brackets and vote following)

(68%) White 49
(7%) African American 58
(14%) Latino/Hispanic 59
(7%) Asian 48

So looking at the hypothetical breakdown out of 100 people you get this table (probably the formatting won’t work):
Yes No Difference
White 68 33.32 34.68 -1.36
Black 7 4.06 2.94 1.12
Latino 14 8.26 5.74 2.52
Asian 7 3.36 3.64 -0.28

So you can see that first … thanks for forgetting us Asians

Second, if only whites and asians were voting, the proposition would not have passed.

Third, if we used Jess’s hypothetical of all black people voting against the proposition, the proposition would not have passed.

Forth, blacks as a group didn’t put the vote over the top on their own. Latinos actually did and by a decent margin too.

But like I said before, if you statistically control for religion the differences between groups drop right out. This isn’t really a racial issue … notwithstanding that its posted on Racialicious and so we’re kinda primed to think that way

Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 1:48 pm ¶
msday wrote:

Although the black community is often stereotyped as criminal, lawless and sinister, people should realize that the religious roots run deep. Most (historic)black Americans are predominately Pentecostal and Baptist and those two reformations hold strong beliefs against homosexuality.
Having said that, I wish there was a way that black people could be allowed to have personal convictions, religious beliefs that others wouldn’t expect to them to ignore just because they have historically been oppressed.

Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 3:10 pm ¶
Lena F. wrote:

I am going to explain both sides of this argument because I can agree that yes, African-Americans being more homophobic is a joke, but on the other hand, I can understand why people would say that African-Americans are more homophobic.
First of all, I think it is a joke because in a way, we feel a certain relativity with the LGBT community because in a way they are discriminated against just like African-Americans were, and still are. There has been hate crimes and deaths because of how people identified themselves sexually, just like black people for lynched for just being black, something that is different and something considered “socially deviant”.
However, homosexuality is still a taboo in the African-American community, therefore even though there are people who support those LGBT, there are those who will not even acknowledge it and may seem like they are agreeing with it, when in fact, they are opposed of it but just would rather not deal with it. Some people would argue that it is appalling when someone compares the struggles of the LGBT community to the struggles of African-Americans because of one major difference: We did not choose to be Black, but they chose to be homosexuals. This is debatable and I do not agree with it, but this is what people, especially older people say. There is also the whole issue of the AIDS epidemic and the issue of the Down-Low and just the perceived deviance of being gay and Black, that they are the cause of the rise in AIDS in African-American women. They might be homophobic out of anger, sadness, or depression because of these stereotypes.
I will say that calling one group of people more homophobic than another is just another way for the dominant group to display their hegemonic intentions; to make it seem like they are more accepting of “different” people and people of color are not, making them more ignorant of people who may be different from them.

Posted 11 Apr 2009 at 12:16 pm ¶
NewYorksRoteenApple wrote:

Wowie. I had no idea that Dan Savage was this much of a racist. I will definitely not support him anymore by reading his column. I am very disappointed but what I’ve seen. Anyway, I feel as if the argument that black people are considerably more homophobic is ridiculous. That statement basically implies that it is impossible for black people to be considered in the LGBT community, and as a lesbian myself, I am offended. Unfortunately, this train of hateful thought will always be in the mind frames of people all over (particularly white people). It sucks, you know, but what can you do.

Posted 20 Jul 2009 at 1:26 pm ¶

Black People More Homophobic? You’re Kidding, Right?

Comments

« Home

About This Post

Categories

Subscribe to This Blog

Search

About This Blog