HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » My post on a Yahoo! news ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat May 12, 2012, 12:21 AM

My post on a Yahoo! news story "Many blacks shrug off Obama's new view on gays"

I made this post on an Associated Press story placed on Yahoo! News detailing my disgust with Black people's opinions on gays marrying.
I'm Black myself & I see it as the ultimate in hypocrisy ESPECIALLY since—as the Trayvon Martin situation proved—we don't fully have a grasp on obtaining equal rights & protections OURSELVES.
(see story about some gun range selling Trayvon Martin-inspired shooting targets with bullseye on hoodie, Skittles & iced tea in pocket. Report: Trayvon Martin gun range targets were sold online)

Many blacks shrug off Obama's new view on gays
http://news.yahoo.com/many-blacks-shrug-off-obamas-view-gays-221003333.html

Excerpts from article

Like many black Americans, Dorsey Jackson does not believe in gay marriage, but he wasn't disillusioned when Barack Obama became the first president to support it. The windows of his suburban Philadelphia barbershop still display an "Obama 2012" placard and another that reads "We've Got His Back."

If Obama needs to endorse same-sex marriage to be re-elected, said Jackson, so be it: "Look, man — by any means necessary."

Black voters and especially black churches have long opposed gay marriage. But the 40-year-old barber and other African-Americans interviewed in politically key states say their support for Obama remains unshaken.

......................

"Obama is human," said Leon Givens of Charlotte, N.C. "I don't have him on a pedestal."

On Tuesday, Givens voted in favor of banning gay marriage in North Carolina. Many black precincts voted 2-1 for the ballot measure, which passed easily.

But this fall, Givens plans to register Obama voters and drive senior citizens to the polls. A retired human resources manager, he suspects the president's pronouncement was "more a political thing than his true feelings." But he's not dwelling on it.

"We can agree to disagree on gay marriage," Givens said, "and then I leave him alone."

......................

Mel Brown, a 65-year-old project manager in Philadelphia, says same-sex marriage "is between them and their God. The God I serve does not agree with that."

Does Obama's announcement change Brown's support for the president? "Absolutely not. Because Scripture says we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

......................

Tanyeo Wotorson, a film producer and director in New York City, supports Obama's new position and said prohibitions on same-sex marriage "return to that time when whites could send people to the back of the bus and women couldn't vote."

Darian Aaron, a gay black man, acknowledges that there are differences between black issues and gay rights, but "at its core both groups are seeking to gain access to full equality under the law."

Even if Obama had not supported same-sex marriage, Aaron said he still would have voted for him because the president has signaled his support in other ways and Romney strongly opposes gay marriage.

Aaron laments that "many within the black community find it nearly impossible to see gay rights through any lens other than biblical." But he finds hope in the statistics showing black people becoming more accepting and says that may be because they've gotten to know gays and lesbians, which breaks down stereotypes.

......................

The Rev. Joseph Lowery, a giant of the civil rights movement who delivered the benediction at Obama's inauguration, said he agrees with Obama on gay marriage.

"I believe in equal rights," Lowery said. "You can't believe in equal rights for some. That's an oxymoron."

However: "Do I like it? I'm uncomfortable with it," said Lowery, 90. "We grew up under boy-girl, man-woman, courtship and marriage."


My comment in response to this article

I'm Black (& straight) & I'm disappointed that many of my people don't see the parallels between the disenfranchisement of Gays & the disenfranchisement of Blacks. Oppressors used the Bible to justify our slavery in the 1700s & 1800s. The cursed Hamites who were born to be a servant class was the mentality of the time. It was wrong then & it is wrong now. There is none of the Ten Commandments that says "Thou Shalt Not Gay". You're not supposed to eat shrimp or wear mixed fabrics & women are always supposed to have their heads covered up according to The Bible™.

Well, America ain't no theocracy so screw what The Bible says. It says "Thou Shalt Not Kill" too but this is one of most warring nations on Earth. People use that book to justify their crap & oppress others they don't like. Gays marrying is simply a Civil Rights issue so Blacks should be THE LAST people trying to oppose that inequity. It ain't been but about 40 years since Martin was gunned down & Blacks wanna act brand new about equal rights. Hell, personally I think marriage is antiquated & obsolete. Us straight folks prove it everyday with the high divorce rate & even higher marriage misery rate for those who stay together. But EVERYBODY should have the right to marry if they want to marry. End of discussion. No more Bible-based bigotry. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere."
Blacks don't have the luxury of playing this oppressor role.

John Lucas

110 replies, 14028 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 110 replies Author Time Post
Reply My post on a Yahoo! news story "Many blacks shrug off Obama's new view on gays" (Original post)
johnlucas May 2012 OP
Zalatix May 2012 #1
johnlucas May 2012 #8
hifiguy May 2012 #2
johnlucas May 2012 #4
hifiguy May 2012 #5
johnlucas May 2012 #38
hifiguy May 2012 #77
JI7 May 2012 #3
SunSeeker May 2012 #6
JI7 May 2012 #9
StarryNight May 2012 #108
JI7 May 2012 #109
johnlucas May 2012 #12
SunSeeker May 2012 #14
vaberella May 2012 #20
HiPointDem May 2012 #30
ruggerson May 2012 #62
SunSeeker May 2012 #73
vaberella May 2012 #19
Jazzgirl May 2012 #88
Odin2005 May 2012 #82
Skittles May 2012 #99
iemitsu May 2012 #7
azurnoir May 2012 #10
AlbertCat May 2012 #11
Tarheel_Dem May 2012 #13
AlbertCat May 2012 #102
Tarheel_Dem May 2012 #103
AlbertCat May 2012 #105
Tarheel_Dem May 2012 #106
AverageJoe90 May 2012 #15
barbtries May 2012 #16
ProfessionalLeftist May 2012 #17
vaberella May 2012 #18
cali May 2012 #21
yardwork May 2012 #41
SpencerShay May 2012 #22
cali May 2012 #23
Zalatix May 2012 #24
uponit7771 May 2012 #50
Number23 May 2012 #26
Tarheel_Dem May 2012 #28
yardwork May 2012 #34
Number23 May 2012 #93
yardwork May 2012 #95
Bluenorthwest May 2012 #54
PufPuf23 May 2012 #92
johnlucas May 2012 #27
EFerrari May 2012 #79
Hissyspit May 2012 #29
HiPointDem May 2012 #32
Hissyspit May 2012 #35
HiPointDem May 2012 #39
yardwork May 2012 #42
HiPointDem May 2012 #43
yardwork May 2012 #44
HiPointDem May 2012 #45
Bluenorthwest May 2012 #56
HiPointDem May 2012 #89
yardwork May 2012 #36
HiPointDem May 2012 #40
ruggerson May 2012 #61
HiPointDem May 2012 #83
obamanut2012 May 2012 #86
HiPointDem May 2012 #90
La Lioness Priyanka May 2012 #101
HiPointDem May 2012 #104
EFerrari May 2012 #65
obamanut2012 May 2012 #84
MellowDem May 2012 #97
ProudToBeBlueInRhody May 2012 #98
geo26r May 2012 #25
yardwork May 2012 #31
johnlucas May 2012 #33
yardwork May 2012 #37
johnlucas May 2012 #46
Warren Stupidity May 2012 #47
yardwork May 2012 #48
johnlucas May 2012 #49
yardwork May 2012 #52
Bluenorthwest May 2012 #57
yardwork May 2012 #58
EFerrari May 2012 #68
yardwork May 2012 #72
EFerrari May 2012 #66
ruggerson May 2012 #63
former9thward May 2012 #81
ruggerson May 2012 #87
stevenleser May 2012 #51
yardwork May 2012 #53
ruggerson May 2012 #64
EFerrari May 2012 #75
99Forever May 2012 #55
Zax2me May 2012 #59
Renaissance Man May 2012 #74
ecstatic May 2012 #78
ruggerson May 2012 #60
Prism May 2012 #67
yardwork May 2012 #76
ecstatic May 2012 #69
Chorophyll May 2012 #70
riderinthestorm May 2012 #71
Jamastiene May 2012 #80
Arkana May 2012 #85
ProSense May 2012 #91
hughee99 May 2012 #94
stillwaiting May 2012 #96
La Lioness Priyanka May 2012 #100
StarryNight May 2012 #107
cr8tvlde May 2012 #110

Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 12:33 AM

1. "Obama is human, I don't have him on a pedestal."

 

That should be our view of all politicians.

And this,

"I'm Black (& straight) & I'm disappointed that many of my people don't see the parallels between the disenfranchisement of Gays & the disenfranchisement of Blacks."

is the opening statement of a new historic civil rights speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #1)

Sat May 12, 2012, 01:38 AM

8. If I had the power to influence a larger circle I would give that speech.

I hope to one day be able to influence people on a larger scale than I do now.
Everybody has the power to influence others but everybody DOES NOT have the power to do it to the same scale.
But until that day I will continue to influence on this current small scale of mine.
To influence the thought that there is no separation between the struggles of the Blacks & the struggles of the Gays.
To influence the thought that Equal Rights trump ALL concerns.
To know that while we are not equal in the absolute sense (different weights, heights, temperaments, talents, & stuff like that), we ALL deserve to enjoy equal regard & respect as a human being.
That we ALL deserve equal benefits & protections under our societal laws & rules.
This should be because we SAY it should be & that's it. That's all it ever has been. Because we SAY so.
And when we say so, it will BE so.
We shape our world. What kind of world do we want to shape?

John Lucas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 12:38 AM

2. Well said, sir.

Well said indeed. Dr. King's quote is timeless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #2)

Sat May 12, 2012, 01:10 AM

4. You gotta make it hit home, man

That quote from Martin will live throughout history. I love that quote. It's one of the realest things ever said.
Black people ain't that far removed from 1968 when Martin was gunned down addressing the injustice around his WHERES.
We ain't got that luxury to act all ambivalent & antagonistic towards another oppressed group's rights.
We don't even have them in full NOW. We're STILL fighting to make it a reality for us yet we're trying to fight against another group trying to make THEIRS a reality?
It's bullshit. I say it straight & plain.

Black people should be the LEADERS of ensuring equal rights for ALL oppressed groups. We should be THE LEADERS of these kinds of things.

Screw Bernice King & her backwards views on gays. I'll listen to her mama Coretta Scott who RIGHTFULLY sees Gay rights as the same thing as Black rights. Bernice was a little girl who got to see most of the struggle on TV. Coretta LIVED this shit so she knows better.
It's Civil Rights & nothing more.

LEGALIZE IT. And when you're done with that let's get to that marijuana thing.
And yes, I support that legalization too even though I never have smoked or never WILL smoke the ganja.
John Lucas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Reply #4)

Sat May 12, 2012, 01:19 AM

5. I have no doubt that were MLK still with us,

he would still be calling for equality for ALL, not just for African-Americans or any other subgroup of the downtrodden. It was simply not in the man's nature to differentiate among the oppressed. All of us in the 99% are what Frantz Fanon called the wretched of the earth.

And I am a middle-aged white guy.

Cheers!

hfg

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #5)

Sat May 12, 2012, 07:03 AM

38. As a matter of fact, he was addressing economic inequality before he was murdered

No doubt he would have been pushing for ALL oppressed groups to get a better deal.
It started with Blacks & Blacks was his homebase but he would be pushing against inequality of ANY sort had he lived.
He was talking about The Poor before he was murdered.

And I love it when middle-aged White guys recognize that we're ALL in this together.
It's 100% in total. And as soon as the 1% remember that, the better off we'll be.
John Lucas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Reply #38)

Sat May 12, 2012, 01:02 PM

77. Everyone not part of the 1% needs to maintain solidarity

for as Ben Franklin said, if we do not hang together, we shall assuredly hang separately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 12:47 AM

3. what percentage of the black vote did Kendrick Meek get ? how about Andrew Cuomo ?

black people have already voted for politicians who support same sex marriage. most black elected officials support same sex marriage. both Meek and Cuomo supported same sex marraige when running for statewide office. did they get less than usual support of the black vote for supporting it ?

it's the black churches which are usually opposed.

this is another case of making something out of nothing.

the media will now find someone like Alan Keyes but less well known and they will claim to have supported Obama before but not anymore and then claim Obama is losing the black vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 01:36 AM

6. Why do such a high percentage of black voters oppose same sex marriage?

I mean, in NC, it was 2-1, as stated in the OP. That's more than the white voters.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/mixed-numbers-for-same-sex-marriage-support-across-country/

I don't get it. Can anyone enlighten me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #6)

Sat May 12, 2012, 01:41 AM

9. because many of them are religious and go to church regularly

the churches can be anti gay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #9)

Tue May 15, 2012, 12:07 PM

108. but why are more blacks "religious?" nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarryNight (Reply #108)

Tue May 15, 2012, 09:01 PM

109. not sure but probably has to do with slavery and other history of blacks in the US

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #6)

Sat May 12, 2012, 02:26 AM

12. Bible Belt nonsense & just your everyday garden-variety fear & paranoia

In the slave days Blacks—Africans were stripped of their cultural customs & routines & pushed to embrace White Man's Christianity to make sure the African, the Black was easier to control. Better control meant better slaves.

In this holocaust which saw families ripped apart & whole populations permanently embedded in an underclass, Black people needed something to give them hope for a better day. The Bible stories that were forced on them gave them an outlet to hope. The slavemaster allowed Blacks to have ministries so the ministry was an escape from the brutal toil of everyday life. So long as the slave ministers preached messages acceptable to the slaveowners, this was allowed. No Nat Turner rebellion & 'let my people go' kind of stuff, ya know.

No literacy was allowed so these were probably oral recitations which is what ministers were for. To administer the message. To serve out the message. Think about it. Some big man behind a stump talking to a captive audience. Why do you need to listen to him if you knew how to read the book for yourself? People still follow this antiquated tradition to this day. You got a book. Read it. Hahaha.

However, this churchy time also proved USEFUL for those slaves who begin to talk in code using the religious storefront. Code talk done in Negro Spirituals which would be seen as just part of the indocrination campaign by the slavemasters. A few slaves were secretly taught how to read too also undoing the campaign. They COULD transmit that 'let my people go' message to the others.
They could be meeting places that serve as the 'train junctions' for that Underground Railroad, meeting places that serve as 'command centers' for those March on Washington ops.

Basically, the Christian Protestant church which was once forced on them became an unintended source of power & hope. Even after official chattel slavery was ended (wage slavery still going on today), the church was the place where you could gain prestige & status. Stuff that was hard to get in a world which still devalued Black life.
In the outside world you're a sharecropper, a pullman porter, a maid, a housekeeper, a shoe-shine boy but in the church you are a DEACON, a REVEREND, a BISHOP, an ORGANIST, a CHOIR DIRECTOR, an USHER, a TRUSTEE, a PROPHET or PROPHETESS.

The White Man's church was ironically instrumental in Black folks' ability to exact measures of equality. Was ironically instrumental in giving Black folks a better sense of identity than an Untouchable, a Slave, a Ninth-class citizen.
In the church, I am a Child of God Almighty. My life has value because my Creator SAYS it has value. It doesn't matter what the world says. It doesn't matter what the White man says.
That's why you saw the Black Church at the forefront of the Black Equality Movement (Civil Rights Movement) of the 1950s & 1960s.
And it wasn't always the Black Christian Church either. Some came from an alternative Black Islamic Church or Mosque (Hello Ward Muhammad, Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan & the Nation of Islam).
Church, Mosque, Synagogue, Temple, same thing.

So this tradition is valuable to many Black people. I'm no longer religious but I come from a strongly religious Black family. Our family reunions have church services included. It's part of the Black community & to turn on the church could be just as severe as turning on the Black community. Just as severe as turning on your own Black family. Without your support network how far can you really go ESPECIALLY in a world that STILL devalues Black life (ask Trayvon)?

It's why I don't make my religious point of view public & obvious to my own family. I don't believe they would disown or disavow me but I don't want to cause tension. I've seen the religion help stabilize one of my family members who was on drugs bad. It has its usefulness. I saw flaws in religion as a pre-teen/teenager & now wish to do good by people outside of the religious yoke. I value certain things WITHIN the religion like the Golden Rule, the stuff about God as 'I AM', certain Proverbs but I only go by these things if they have a universal weight. When they seem beyond humankind's bias & bigotry. When they seem to run under an immutable universal law. I look at religion as another sector of philosophy & judge by its positive merits.

But all Black folks ain't like me. Most people period ain't like me. I'm unusual.
So they will live life by what's written in the Bible & if the minister says homosexuality is 'living in sin' then they will believe that anything gay is 'living in sin' regardless of how badly thought-out that conclusion is. Few are brave enough to challenge this covertly or openly due to the support network factor.

Outside of this realm, it also falls into simple fear & paranoia in general. The simple 'I don't understand it. It looks gross. EWWWW!' kind of thing. They might not even be religious but they fear homosexual people. The unique cross-up of feminine & masculine seen in homosexual people weirds them out. Gay men are masculine in body but feminine in brain. Gay women are feminine in body but masculine in brain. It's all hormonal from the womb but they don't understand that fact.
The Yin-Yang symbol which explains everything: One white swash with a black dot in the middle, one black swash with a white dot in the middle. There's a little man in every woman & a little woman in every man. In gay people this just gets a little more pronounced.
Once this is understood as fact rather than fable, this irrationality will fade out.

Meanwhile, Black people already under siege trying to maintain the Black family (been that way since the slave days) fear that gay people are emblematic of the ultimate destruction of family life. They must be taught that this is just another variation of nature not the apocalypse of your own kind. Besides, ultimately every gay person was born from a straight.
John Lucas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Reply #12)

Sat May 12, 2012, 02:59 AM

14. So it's basically a matter of lack of education?

I mean, the "EWWW!" thing is kinda hard to deal with because people can't relate to how someone is attracted to something they're not. Kinda like my kid reacts when he sees me eat sushi. But sushi's not banned. Same-sex marriage is. So it must be that whole fear and paranoia thing, with seems to be based on lack of understanding of the facts, i.e. poor education. Do you think if we fixed education, it would also fix homophobia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #14)

Sat May 12, 2012, 04:39 AM

20. Unfortunately it's not so much a lack of education,

as it is giving up the only thing they have left to believe in. There is this thing within the Black community with God. Where, if they had nothing else, they had their belief in God and this belief kept them safe and warm at night. Not realizing fully that it was their own effort, their own struggle to survive that did it.

And this religion thing is poison because Religion makes homosexuality a sin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #14)

Sat May 12, 2012, 06:31 AM

30. it's the same as white people who oppose gay marriage, what's so hard to understand?

 

nothng to do with education.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #30)

Sat May 12, 2012, 11:07 AM

62. I think the point is about percentages

Why does the African American community oppose equality for lgbt Americans in higher percentages than the white community at large?

Of course, it's a valid point that there wouldn't be institutionalized homophobia without white people, since whites still basically control the power structure in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #30)

Sat May 12, 2012, 12:36 PM

73. Then why aren't the percentages the same?

If it has nothing to do with education, then what is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Reply #12)

Sat May 12, 2012, 04:36 AM

19. A "the fuck" men!!! I just said that. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Reply #12)

Sat May 12, 2012, 04:19 PM

88. Wish I could rec this post.

I can very much relate to what you say. I have a very similar philosophy and don't talk about it to hardly anyone. Most in my family are very religious but I realized when I was a child that it was used as a control mechanism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #6)

Sat May 12, 2012, 02:24 PM

82. Most Blacks belong to evangelical churches (Baptist and Methodist, mainly).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #6)

Sat May 12, 2012, 11:46 PM

99. the usual Bible Bullshit

a black coworker of mine said he thought civil unions for gays are OK, but not marriage. "Let 'em get on the bus but make 'em sit in the back", I responded, totally shocking him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 01:37 AM

7. thank you for this post.

i enjoy reading an article where those quoted sound like reasonable and thoughtful people. folk with common sense.
i'm glad also, to know that obama's support for gay marriage is not going to be the driving issue for the black community come november.
i empathize with your frustration over the persistence of archaic attitudes and agree with you that people of color need to be supportive of all those who are oppressed and denied civil rights.
but, i also think that many in our society are, or feel is if they are, in no position to embrace controversial or new ideas. it makes them more vulnerable. they don't have much wiggle room if they want to survive. what is familiar is safe.
living on the edge, barely keeping ahead of the bills (or not) is being oppressed. many americans, and many people of color in america are in this position.
we, you and i and others, who see the importance of supporting those without power in our society need to show compassion for these old farts too.
actually they all sound much smarter than any teabaggers that might be interviewed.
you ought to be proud of them.

thanks again for the post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 01:44 AM

10. exactly and very well said moreover

as a White who was married to a Black man I learned long ago that people will make all kinds of moralistic and BS judgments about me based on "look what she goes home and crawls in bed with" it is very much the same with LGBT people judgments of you as a person made on the gender of your partner are little different than those made on the race of your partner they are generally BS and bigoted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 02:16 AM

11. Many black precincts voted 2-1 for the ballot measure

I wonder if, way back when, whites voted 2 to 1 for colored drinking fountains...


Mel Brown, a 65-year-old project manager in Philadelphia, says ... "The God I serve does not agree with that."

Isn't Mel tired of being a servant?



These people have been made fools by religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #11)

Sat May 12, 2012, 02:58 AM

13. "These people have been made fools by religion."

So you think it proper to condemn one type of bigotry, while displaying your own intolerance for religious people? As an AA myself, many people in my own family are still struggling with this issue, and for them it is quite a serious one.

While I understand and share your frustration, it's going to take time and education to disabuse people of the notion that they should be guided by personal religious belief when it comes to public policy matters. Having left the church eons ago, I have no trouble distinguishing the two. Attitudes are changing, slowly but surely, but I don't think that belittling people for the beliefs they've been taught from birth, is the way to change hearts and minds. As a matter of fact, I think it will have the exact reverse effect.

All that being said, I can tell you that even within my own family of eleven brothers & sisters, we're about evenly divided on the issue of gay marriage. Those of us who believe it's a civil rights matter, pure and simple, are working to change the minds of the others. This, in no way, means that I think you or anyone else should tolerate bigotry of any sort, but we should also refrain from using one type of bigotry to condemn another. Peace.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #13)

Sun May 13, 2012, 11:07 AM

102. displaying your own intolerance for religious people?

I'm not intolerant of ALL religious people. I just don't suffer fools. And religion has a knack for turning even intelligent people into fools.

Besides, why should I continue to pretend to respect people who would condemn me to ETERNAL punishment? I. Don't. Think. So. Enough of playing nice just because it's religion. Ancient superstitions have no authority over me.

Don't play the bigot card with me. It's time religion got called out for its divisiveness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #102)

Sun May 13, 2012, 01:06 PM

103. Good to know that some forms intolerance are superior to others. "A rose by any other name"

comes to mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #103)

Tue May 15, 2012, 11:03 AM

105. Good to know that some forms intolerance are superior to others.

Awwww...I'm so ashamed... you're right!

I will hensforth be more tolerant of child molesters and murderers.


Would that smell as sweet to you?

Wouldn't want any kumbaya moments to make anyone look like a fool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #105)

Tue May 15, 2012, 11:19 AM

106. I certainly hope this isn't your face to face approach to people. If so, that could explain a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 03:04 AM

15. Excellent response, John. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 04:12 AM

16. i think your response is great.

you touched on so much - hitting the heads of more than one nail. good work, i hope at least ONE hater hears you and rethinks their position.
people's position on gay marriage ARE changing, and changing fast. i believe it is because bottom line, there is no good reason to oppose civil rights for everyone. if one of us can assume these rights for ourselves and we are fair minded, we must assume them for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 04:23 AM

17. +1000

Well done John.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 04:35 AM

18. Religion is a curse put upon Black Americans...for real.

I will never undestand even serving a White faced God at the same time being persecuted by the same during that time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 05:22 AM

21. I saw Julian Bond the other night on CNN. He was amazing

and so eloquent on how this is the new civil right frontier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #21)

Sat May 12, 2012, 07:12 AM

41. Many black leaders in North Carolina came out strongly against the amendment.

The head of the state NAACP, the Reverend Dr. William Barber, worked hard to defeat the amendment, along with many leaders of historically black churches and black organizations.

As usual the media are carrying water for the jerks who want to divide two strong Democratic voting blocs. This time we are ready for them. We experienced a heartbreaking defeat in North Carolina. Now the evildoers want to make it even worse. I will do everything I can to fight back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 05:42 AM

22. Excuse Me.

 

FUCK ALL OF YOU!

These fucking anti-gay laws wouldn't be able to pass AT ALL without white people! Blacks only make up like 12% of the fucking population, and even less of the voting population! It also isn't the fault of two, or three black anti-gay legislators, when a pro-gay marriage bill fails, when the majority of the states' legislators are WHITE! A few of the bigoted whites, could change their votes, too, ya know! I don't know why blacks are always being fucking singled out! Every time something bad happens to gay people, everybody blames the blacks! Women, and other racial minorities vote for anti-gay laws, why aren't they fucking hypocrites, too? I don't recall blacks blaming gays for all their fucking civil rights setbacks, during the 1960's civil rights movement. I don't recall gays coming to the aid of blacks during the 1960's civil rights movement, at all! Instead of only "educating" blacks, why don't you try "educating" more bigoted whites, who make up the majority of the fucking population, to change their fucking views on gay marriage? And, in case you have forgotten: some blacks are gay, too!

Not all blacks are fucking homphobic, bible-thumpers!

Oh, and there are a lot of gay bigots, too. Hypocrisy, and bigotry works BOTH ways!

FUCK ALL OF YOU!

This will probably be my final post. Like I give a shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpencerShay (Reply #22)

Sat May 12, 2012, 05:45 AM

23. ah, thank goodness for small blessings.

Last edited Sat May 12, 2012, 06:39 AM - Edit history (1)

so go away. go away dyspeptic but just go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpencerShay (Reply #22)

Sat May 12, 2012, 05:49 AM

24. I wouldn't TOS you over this. You do have a point, even if it is expressed with rage.

 

This is not something that should be put on black people's backs, not at all.

Even if blacks aren't being outright BLAMED for this, you do make me ask... why are they talking about the black vote at all, when the white vote was the largest force responsible for making Amendment One pass?

But first I suppose we need to agree on the basic fact that the news is in fact talking about the black vote and not the white vote, with regards to this. The article in the OP pretty much establishes that fact. Can someone find a matching article about whites shrugging off President Obama's view on gay marriage?

Why do we have articles talking about the black vote? What makes them stand out so much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #24)

Sat May 12, 2012, 08:35 AM

50. Then why all the concentration even in the MSM? TIA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpencerShay (Reply #22)

Sat May 12, 2012, 06:14 AM

26. Results:

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat May 12, 2012, 06:01 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: wish the poster hadn't typed "FUCK ALL OF YOU!" (twice).

and "This will probably be my final post. Like I give a shit."

as content was OK.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: He or she didn't single out one person but is just saying Fuck All You out of anger. I actually think this poster is making a good point.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Much of what this poster has said is the spot on truth. But some of it is lies and all of it is flamebait.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The ' FUCK ALL OF YOU' is very close to inappropriate but isn't an attack directly on another DU'er. Otherwise the poster expresses a a well- thought out opinion.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I agree with everything they said.


So you had 3-3 to leave it alone, but you had two jurors that voted to hide that actually agreed with what you were saying (jurors #1 and 4). I was juror #4. I agree with so much of what you're saying and think you have some very good points. I've made similar ones myself when trying to figure out why oh why the thoughts/opinions of black folks are always so important on just this ONE issue. And only if they can be construed in as negative a way as possible.

But I have no doubt that there were some gays that played a role in the civil rights movement, even if most people didn't know they were gay at the time. So I voted to hide your post mostly based on that. But I sort of understand why other jurors decided not to. For the record, it took a long time before this jury verdict came back. This was actually one of the most layered, sophisticated and interesting jury decisions I've ever come across.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #26)

Sat May 12, 2012, 06:27 AM

28. I'm glad I don't do juries, but I think I would've voted just as you did. It's the "F ALL OF YOU"..

that crosses the line, I think. This is just what the people who sponsor these ballot initiatives are after. As our friend Scott Walker was recently caught saying "Divide & Conquer". Pit two minority groups against each other, and it's a recipe for disaster, but only if we allow it.

Attitudes are changing, and I've witnessed it in my own life. But I must admit, that as a black progressive, it's getting more & more difficult to be the on the receiving end of some of the racially charged attacks we're being treated to. "Progressives" should know better. I hope, for all our sake, we can educate the masses & move forward together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #26)

Sat May 12, 2012, 06:56 AM

34. I would have voted to leave alone despite the anger and the one incorrect statement, which has been

corrected in this thread with the reference to Bayard Rustin and other LGBT people - known and unknown - who marched and fought for black civil rights.

I agree with everything else the poster is saying and I understand his anger.

As a white lesbian, I strongly oppose the tendency of the media and a whole lot of people to blame black people for the current war on gay people, which is run and financed almost entirely by white people. The virulently homophobic organization National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has a specific strategy to divide two strongly Democratic groups from one another by deliberately pitting gay voters against black voters. As a result of court cases in Maine, NOM's secret documents on this plan were revealed. See link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/nom-anti-gay-marriage-plans-hrc-revealed_n_1382388.html

As I post downthread, the news reports aren't accurate. They are cherry picking data to cause trouble. It is absolutely false for the media to suggest that this amendment passed in North Carolina because of black voters. This effort was planned and executed by bigoted WHITE out of state groups like the Alliance Defense Fund, which wrote the legislation that the virtually ALL-WHITE Republican legislators in North Carolina approved without allowing public comment. The get out the vote for hate was financed by virtually ALL-WHITE groups like NOM (probably a front for the Mormon and Catholic church leadership and maybe three WHITE multi-millionaires) and willingly spread by zillions of WHITE preachers spewing hate from the pulpits every Sunday. The fact that black preachers and black congregations were targets as well is just part of the NOM strategy.

I know the faces of the people who made sure that hate would prevail in North Carolina last Tuesday and they are 99% white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #34)

Sat May 12, 2012, 07:09 PM

93. To be perfectly honest with you

(And I do feel that I can do that with you because I have seen you be really focused on this issue in a way that I admire)

I strongly oppose the tendency of the media and a whole lot of people to blame black people for the current war on gay people, which is run and financed almost entirely by white people.

It is very good to see that people are not following for the meme and are opposing it -- THIS TIME. That was certainly not the case after Prop 8 was passed in California.

I know the faces of the people who made sure that hate would prevail in North Carolina last Tuesday and they are 99% white.

I love to see a racist meme crushed before my very eyes. Thank you for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #93)

Sat May 12, 2012, 07:51 PM

95. A lot of us were saying this after Prop 8 too.

It's unfortunate that people fall for stereotypes. Ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #26)

Sat May 12, 2012, 09:18 AM

54. You say: 'I have no doubt that there were some gays that played a role in the civil rights movement"

Of course you are correct, and I urge you to learn about Bayard Rustin, who was far more than some gay guy hanging around the movement, he was the person who introduced King to non violent resistance methods and he was a if not the key organizer of the March on Washington. He was among Dr King's closest allies and friends.
Here's Rustin's Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin

And here is a link to a page about a documentary on Rustin called 'Brother Outsider' which is Netflix-able.
http://rustin.org/

Knowledge = Life

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #26)

Sat May 12, 2012, 06:06 PM

92. I will admit to being Juror #1 and also

that I agree with the poster's opinion but thought the anger rude and distracting and unnecessary.

"Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: wish the poster hadn't typed "FUCK ALL OF YOU!" (twice).

and "This will probably be my final post. Like I give a shit."

as content was OK."

Generally, anger and mocking posts don't help the DU community IMHO and I basically jurored on the anger vs content ratio in context of the general tone of the thread.When I am on a jury, I always read the etire thread for context.

"For the record, it took a long time before this jury verdict came back. This was actually one of the most layered, sophisticated and interesting jury decisions I've ever come across."

Agree, I imagined if every post in the thread had the same fuck yous as punctuation and made my decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpencerShay (Reply #22)

Sat May 12, 2012, 06:25 AM

27. I point out Blacks because we should know better

When it comes to Whites, as the Republican Party & Yahoo! comment boards show, at least a plurality of them are bigots against one group of people or more. I don't expect much from them since this country was built upon catering to their bigoted mentalities.

But when Blacks echo those points of view, I AM disappointed because we have been & ARE the victims of those bigoted mentalities.
I expect more from us. We should instinctively know better given our history in this land.
I point it out as a reality check.
How have we come to adopt the bigotry of the oppressor?
Do we think we're "in the club" & have earned/gained/won the luxury to oppress other groups?
Do we think that's gonna help us get what we deserve from this country by "eliminating the competition"?

Yeah, Blacks as a population in this country only assist in swaying the national vote. Whites with their numbers are the ones who have the most power to sway the national vote.
A pure numbers game. There's just more of them in this country.
Yes, of course the Whites most of all need to change but us Blacks don't need to be assisting in maintaining oppressive laws.

Us Blacks should stand up to bigotry WHEREEVER it comes from. This coalition of the "minorities" in terms of political power must not break form to help maintain the evil status quo. We put enough of our scrappy numbers together we beat those bigoted White folks.
Blacks, non-bigoted Whites, Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, Middle Easterners, Women, Gays all put together can cancel those fools out.
We showed it in 2008 with the election of Barack Obama.
We will show it in 2012 with the RE-ELECTION of Barack Obama.
The bigoted White vote will have no more sway in national elections.
Next step is to cancel out their sway in regional elections.

So I call out Blacks who entertain these bigoted points of view.
They better remember that they have to RENEW the Voting Rights Act every few years.
Keep playing around with that bigotry & one day watch somebody roll back the clock when that Act is not renewed.
You think you're hurting the gays but you're ultimately hurting yourselves.
John Lucas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Reply #27)

Sat May 12, 2012, 01:39 PM

79. John Lucas, have you read The Pedagogy of the Oppressed?

If you are asking these questions, that's a work that might speak to you right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpencerShay (Reply #22)

Sat May 12, 2012, 06:27 AM

29. "I don't recall gays coming to the aid of blacks during the 1960's civil rights movement, at all!"

What an incredibly ignorant thing to write.

http://www.oberlinlgbt.org/content/Behind-the-Masks/1960s/the-civil-rights-movement-and-lgbt-identities-late-1950s-to-mid-1960s.html

"Bayard Rustin was an openly gay civil rights leader who is widely credited with organizing the 1963 March on Washington."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #29)

Sat May 12, 2012, 06:47 AM

32. it's not ignorant at all. bayard rustin certainly wasn't out to the world, because those things

 

weren't talked about in public in 1963. The main reason he was "out" was because he'd been arrested for having sex in a car -- and word got around within the circles he worked in. he may have been out in that sense to colleagues, but he didn't chose to be (the arrest got him fired, for one thing, and affected his career negatively for a long time). He wasn't out to the world or the media generally, and he didn't organize the march on washington as a *gay* man, nor as a representative of gay people generally, but as a *black* man.

the poster is perfectly correct. gays, as a organized group, didn't support the early civil rights movement -- and that's because gays were not, for the most part, organized as a self-conscious category in 1963. There were a couple of small organized groups -- mattachine society was one -- but it was still so taboo to be gay that it was very secretive: "Because of concerns for secrecy and the founders’ leftist ideology, they adopted the cell organization being used by the Communist Party." Daughters of Bilitis was similar for women, founded 1955. The average person knew nothing of these groups, and neither did most gay people.

Individual gay people may have supported the movement, but not in solidarity as "homosexuals". Get the difference?

Anyone who thinks what the poster said was "ignorant" is ignorant. If you weren't alive then it's hard to really get how different it was and how quickly things changed. Accounts that say he was "openly gay" are engaging in sloppy language, if not revisionism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #32)

Sat May 12, 2012, 06:57 AM

35. Um, that's part of the ignorance.

The poster did not say "as an organized group." You did. Gays who supported Civil Rights weren't out because of many reasons.

Poster doesn't recall gays helping the civil rights movement not because they didn't, but because they weren't generally identified as such. His implication is of hypocrisy on the part of gays based on his recall of something that is factually insupportable, so to complain about an factually insupportable generalized slander - and I agree with the poster that it is such - against one group (African Americans were responsible for the passage of Amendment One), poster uses a factually insupportable generalized slander against another group (Gays didn't aid the Civil Rights Movement).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #35)

Sat May 12, 2012, 07:08 AM

39. Then it would be better to point out that fact rather than point to Bayard Rustin & say he

 

supported the movement as an "openly gay" man (a half-truth at best), as if being "openly gay" was even possible then in the same sense it is now, as if gayness was even a category that could be spoken of in public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #39)

Sat May 12, 2012, 07:15 AM

42. Excuse me, but you are becoming offensive. Bayard Rustin was openly gay. So were many other people.

It sounds like you don't know much about the history of the gay rights movement, and that's fine, you aren't under any obligation to do so, but you are crossing the line when you start insisting on your version of the truth and demeaning gay people's history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #42)

Sat May 12, 2012, 07:25 AM

43. Were you alive then? I was. He was closeted until he got arrested for having sex in a car.

 

He didn't chose to be outed in his work life, people found out about the arrest and it caused him a lot of problems. He got fired. On what planet were "a lot of people" out? Only in certain professions (mainly the arts) could you be out to your colleagues without being at risk. Homosexuality was criminalized in many states and considered abnormal, subnormal, and a mental illness.

The general public didn't know Bayard Rustin was gay, or any other public figure. Those things weren't talked about in the media.

And as for not knowing much about the history, the fact that i mentioned the mattachine society and the daughters of bilitis should have clued you in a bit.

It ain't my version of the truth, sorry. I was alive then and I know how it was. Sorry if you find it offensive. If it was so damn easy to be out in 1963 then what was the movement about and why is it said to have started in 1969 with stonewall, when the police in 'liberal' new york could just walk into a gay club and arrest people for being there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #43)

Sat May 12, 2012, 07:36 AM

44. I was alive then and knew gay people at the time, including black gay people.

Anybody can use wikipedia and spout off about the mattachine society, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #44)

Sat May 12, 2012, 07:42 AM

45. of course individuals may have known gay people. that doesn't mean they were "openly gay".

 

openly gay doesn;t mean out to your friends or your little clique or other gay people. openly gay means out to the world.

if i didn't know what the mattachine society was already, how would i know where to find it in a discussion about bayard rustin and the civil rights movement?

i repeat, if it was so fucking easy to be openly gay, then why was a movement necessary?

no, it's revisionism to say rustin was openly gay. and it's revisionism to say that "lots" of people were openly gay in 1963.

and gay history is history, as black history is history.

to be perfectly clear, here's an example of revisionist history:

In 1956, Bayard Rustin was hidden in the trunk of a car and snuck out of Montgomery during the Montgomery Bus Boycott because it was feared that having an openly-gay man as an advisor would discredit the efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King and the other leaders of the African-American Civil Rights Movement.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/bayard-rustin-martin-luther-king-jr-s-gay-strategist-deserves-better/politics/2011/08/23/25730

doesn't it seem odd that an "openly gay" man would have to hide in the trunk of a car?

the truth is that rustin wasn't openly gay (except that he wasn't celibate), but enemies of the movement knew he was gay because of his arrest for having gay sex, which was illegal at the time, which was why his participation had to be hidden -- because the fact that he was gay could be used to discredit the movement.

i have no idea what this kind of "open gayness" even means. he's hiding in the trunk of a car *because* he's gay.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #45)

Sat May 12, 2012, 09:30 AM

56. Heard of James Baldwin?

Langston Hughes? Go read Giovanni's Room and then tell me Baldwin was all closeted. That book was 1956. Baldwin of course moved to France due to the warm embrace American offered to gay people particularly those of color.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #56)

Sat May 12, 2012, 05:08 PM

89. Golly, no, I never heard of those people, thanks for educating me -- not.

 

Yeah, Giovanni's room was published in 1956 -- by a small press (Dial, then an independent press) that published "arty/literary" books. It was rejected by his own publisher because it was gay-themed. And it was written in paris, where baldwin had gone because he could be more "openly gay" there (and openly black) without being persecuted for it. Which should make you wonder why he had to go to france to be "openly gay," even in the artistic/literary circles he traveled in.

And second, I didn't tell you that Baldwin was closeted (though he wasn't exactly "openly gay," either, as the general reading public didn't know he was gay and the fact wasn't mentioned in the media discussions of his work).

Nor did I tell you that there were *no* uncloseted gay people in 1963. So not sure why you're setting up that straw man.

You seem to think the existence of a gay-themed book in 1956 proves that 1) Bayard Rustin was "openly gay," & 2) "lots of people" were openly gay at the time. It doesn't, and they weren't.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3041915?uid=3739856&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698994131177


"Baldwin’s tenure as a critical darling of the black press, however, came to a head six short years later with the publication of his controversial second novel, Giovanni’s Room (1956). Set in the Parisian gay underworld and featuring an all-white cast of characters, Giovanni’s Room was initially ignored and, later, frequently satirized in the black press throughout the late 1950s and into the 1960s..."

http://zeteojournal.com/files/2012/04/Corbman-FINAL-PDF.pdf


Revisionist history tells us that "the reviews were excellent" and cites a review by granville hicks and one by nelson algren. What these histories neglect to mention is that both hicks and algren were communist party members and that the "excellent" reviews came almost exclusively from this segment of reviewers -- i.e. from the left, which had some power in those days in the NY literary scene, but was itself "closeted" in this mccarthyite era.

And as you can see by reading Hicks' short review, it discussed the homosexual content rather delicately and by highlighting the fact that david chose the woman (not mentioning that he later went back on that choice), the paris "underworld" setting ("exotic") and the "grotesqueness" of the characters.

David tells the story on a single night, the night before Giovanni is to be guillotined as a murderer. He tells of his life in Giovanni's room, of deserting Giovanni for Hella and of making plans to marry her, of the effect of this on Giovanni, and of the effect of Giovanni's plight on his own relations with Hella. Mr. Baldwin writes of these matters with an unusual degree of candor and yet with such dignity and intensity that he is saved from sensationalism.

Much of the novel is laid in scenes of squalor, with a background of characters as grotesque and repulsive as any that can be found in Proust's "Cities of the Plain." But even as one is dismayed by Mr. Baldwin's materials, one rejoices in the skill with which he renders them. Nor is there any suspicion that he is working with these materials merely for the sake of shocking the reader. One the contrary, his intent is most serious. One of the lesser characters, in many ways a distasteful one, tells David that "not many people have ever died of love." "But," he goes on, "multitudes have perished, and are perishing every hour--and in the oddest places!--for the lack of it." This is Mr. Baldwin's subject, the rareness and difficulty of love, and, in his rather startling way, he does a great deal with it.


http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/29/specials/baldwin-giovanni.html

There is no discussion of Mr. Baldwin's own sexuality or even any acknowledgement of homosexuality as the book's theme that isn't couched in delicate terms. The fact that a gay-themed book was published in 1956 doesn't mean that 1) bayard rustin was "openly gay," 2) the average person outside the ny/la/sf lit-scene knew anything about the book or what it was about, or 3) "lots" of people were openly gay.

As for langston hughes, he was in no sense "openly gay".









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #32)

Sat May 12, 2012, 06:58 AM

36. The point is that many gay people did support the Civil Rights Movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #36)

Sat May 12, 2012, 07:09 AM

40. i'm sure they did. but not in some public identity of "homosexuals".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #40)

Sat May 12, 2012, 10:58 AM

61. That's largely because gay people weren't open about it because they didn't want to land in jail

Didn't Rustin become an openly gay activist in his later years? And wasn't he attacked early on by homophobes such as Eldridge Cleaver?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ruggerson (Reply #61)

Sat May 12, 2012, 03:46 PM

83. yes, which is my point. yes. and yes, i believe so.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #40)

Sat May 12, 2012, 03:58 PM

86. Being Gay then was illegal

Not just "gay sexual behavior" (whatever the hell that is), but just IDing as gay.

And was also considered a mental illness. Being non-closeted would, at best, get you fired and fined, and, at worst, get you prison time and/or thrown into a mental ward.

Mrs. King stated that some of Dr. King's close advisers were Gay, both Black and White.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #86)

Sat May 12, 2012, 05:26 PM

90. which is my *point*. today "openly gay" means you are out to the world. not just to your friends,

 

not just to people you think will be sympathetic -- to the world.

which means you aren't hiding in car trunks so people won't find out.

saying rustin was "openly gay" distorts his actual position. he wasn't going around saying "i'm gay" to the world. he hid it at fellowship of reconciliation and was fired when, because of his arrest, it came out. he was "out" only to people he thought would be ok with it before his arrest and went along with hiding his involvement in mlk's movement after his arrest because *if people found out he was gay it would cause problems for the movement*.

ergo, he was not "openly gay," in the modern sense and saying he was is a distortion. saying "lots" of people were is also a distortion.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #90)

Sun May 13, 2012, 09:52 AM

101. how could gays join a movement when their existence was illegal?

also, would you really want them too? at the time, would gays joining the black civil rights movement would possibly have been the worst thing for the civil rights of african americans.

these arguments are a bunch of horseshit and i feel like you probably know this.

no one is expecting straight blacks (or straight people in other races) to join the gay community in its civil rights struggle, they are asking not to vote against it. It's a very different conversation, because the first involves a lot more active involvement where as the latter just says don't oppose it.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #101)

Mon May 14, 2012, 02:55 AM

104. Where did i ask them to? OTOH, being gay was just as illegal in 1969 as in 1963, yet they made

 

a movement. (Don't know why they bothered, since multiple posters have assured me that "lots" of people were "openly gay" at that time.)

Did gay people take part in the civil rights movement? Yes, as I acknowledged.

Did they take part as self-consciously "gay" people? Nope. For obvious reasons.

Was Bayard Rustin "openly gay"? No, not in the sense that we use the phrase today.

There is, in the emerging and more public narrative about him, a tendency to describe Rustin as an "out gay man." But the truth is more complex.

In 1986, the writer Joseph Beam invited Rustin to contribute to what would become a key work, In the Life: A Black Gay Anthology. Rustin's response was thoughtful and clear: "I was not involved in the struggle for gay rights as a youth. ... I did not 'come out of the closet' voluntarily—circumstances (his arrest) forced me out.

While I have no problem with being publicly identified as homosexual, it would be dishonest of me to present myself as one who was in the forefront of the struggle for gay rights. ... I fundamentally consider sexual orientation to be a private matter. As such, it has not been a factor which has greatly influenced my role as an activist."


http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/Bayard-Rustin-A-complex-legacy/36990.html

He didn't contribute.

I was told in this thread I was offensive & didn't know anything about gay history. I was told I just looked up bullshit on wikipedia.

I was told in another thread that a poster's family knew lots of gay people and had no problem with it because their parents raised them right; all people have to do is raise their kids right and there's no discrimination.

I think that's bullshit. It disappears the entire mechanism of the state and the pressures that are put on people by society, their peers, the state, that cause them to go along to get along, zip their lips even when things are happening they feel uncomfortable with, so they can be safe. It's not just about people raising their kids not to discriminate. I'd warrant if a new version of the Nazis rose to power today we'd see a hell of a lot of people who currently fancy themselves to be non-prejudiced acting the role of good Germans. Because I see people doing it every bloody day in smaller ways.

And Bayard Rustin wasn't "openly gay"; that's revisionism that transposes today's language onto yesterday's life. The only way you could be "openly gay" in those times was if you were prepared to endure harrassment, job loss, imprisonment & possible death. Very few people were willing. Some people were "openly gay' within a sympathetic community or subculture with a code of silence toward the larger world, but few were "openly gay"
to the world, which is what "openly gay" means today. Rustin wasn't, and moreover, he didn't want to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpencerShay (Reply #22)

Sat May 12, 2012, 11:37 AM

65. Bravo. And since we have evidence that the right wing is deliberately

trying to set these two communities against each other, a second attaboy for rejecting the big steaming pile:

"The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks — two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of his party. Fanning the hostility raised in the wake of Prop 8 is key to raising the costs of pushing gay marriage to its advocates ... find attractive young black Democrats to challenge white gay marriage advocates electorally."

- National Organization for Marriage


reported 9 May on Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/9/north_carolina_voters_approve_sweeping_amendment

--

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpencerShay (Reply #22)

Sat May 12, 2012, 03:54 PM

84. Lots of Gay Americans were part of the Civil Rights Movement, including White ones

Blacks are LGBT too, you know. And, being openly Gay was illegal then, you know, so Gay Americans of any race weren't proclaiming that fact as they fought for civil rights.

Coretta Scott King made mention of the fact that some of Dr. King's close advisers were Gay, and stated that Dr. King would have been very pro marriage equality. She is the person who knew him best, so I believe her. She herself was pro marriage equality, as was the wonderful Mildred Loving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpencerShay (Reply #22)

Sat May 12, 2012, 08:53 PM

97. No, you're not excused...

I can understand your anger at some of the media and especially those on the right who do play up black opinions on gay marriage, but why are you directing that anger at DU? Seems you are doing exactly what they want you to, lashing out at allies and people who agree with you.

You are arguing a strawman, no one said that all blacks are homophobic or bible-thumpers.

But there is nothing wrong with discussing certain disparities in opinion between groups to try to understand them and fix them. I constantly ask why so many working class whites vote Republican. Nobody here is blaming blacks as a group for these laws. The people to blame are all those who voted for it, no matter their color.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpencerShay (Reply #22)

Sat May 12, 2012, 09:05 PM

98. "Every time something bad happens to gay people, everybody blames the blacks!"

Really.......really?

Oh well, goodbye and good riddance. You won't be missed, there's plenty of drama to go around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 06:07 AM

25. Spam deleted by OKNancy (MIR Team)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 06:37 AM

31. In North Carolina, not all predominately black precincts voted for the amendment.

As usual, the media is lazy and biased in its reporting.

I looked at the precinct by precinct voting results in a county in North Carolina that defeated the amendment, Durham County. The precinct results are in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/113712335

The only precincts where voters approved the amendment in Durham County were predominately white, rural neighborhoods. I boldfaced those precincts.

Every other precinct defeated the amendment in Durham County, which is 38% black. Some of the precincts are nearly 100% black. In every single one of those precincts the amendment was defeated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #31)

Sat May 12, 2012, 06:48 AM

33. I'm happy to hear this

That's how it SHOULD be. Blacks standing up to oppression.
That's good. I'm happy to hear this.

I have no worries that just like in California this amendment from North Carolina will be overturned as unconstitutional.
You don't put human rights up to a vote. You do that with Olympic mascots & prospective sports franchises.
John Lucas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Reply #33)

Sat May 12, 2012, 07:02 AM

37. It can't be overturned as unconstitutional. It is an amendment TO the state constitution.

The only way to overturn this new amendment to our constitution is for 4/5 of the state legislature to vote to overturn it, and then for the people of North Carolina to vote to overturn it. I doubt that will happen in my lifetime. Perhaps in 30-50 years that might happen.

The only hope for North Carolina to ever see equal rights for gay people - even the possibility of civil unions, which are now outlawed in our constitution - would be for the U.S. Supreme Court to find a federal right to marriage and force all states to provide equal marriage benefits, an I don't see that happening. Obama stated earlier this week that this issue is up to the states. Many states have constitutional amendments like North Carolina's.

Bigotry against gay people is now written into my state's constitution, and the constitution of many other states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #37)

Sat May 12, 2012, 08:00 AM

46. Can't the federal override this?

States don't have absolute power. When they pass laws not in line with the United States Constitution, they can be overturned, right?
Discrimination against sexual orientation?

I wasn't talking about the state's constitution, I was talking about the nation's constitution.
The Federal will overturn this. That's why Obama strategically "evolved" publicly.
When the President of the United States plainly says that gays have the right to marry, changes are coming.
This won't last long & bigots against gays are about to lose this fight.

Yeah this version of the U.S. Supreme Court with its "conservative" leaning is suspect.
But let one of those conservatives step down, Obama will appoint a non-conservative in that one's place.

Wait a minute, Wikipedia time...

California Proposition 8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8

Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California, nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.

........................

United States District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal.

On February 7, 2012, in a 2–1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker's decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. The panel also unanimously affirmed Judge Ware's holding that Walker was not obligated to recuse himself from the case because he is gay. Still, the panel continued a stay on the ruling, barring any marriages from taking place pending further appeals.


There's going to be a judge in North Carolina who will make the same judgment ESPECIALLY now that it has precedent.
All you need is one judge. Make the case & overturn this bullshit law. They'll bring back Jim Crow if you let 'em.
John Lucas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Reply #46)

Sat May 12, 2012, 08:15 AM

47. Of course the USSC should apply loving v Virginia.

But will it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Reply #46)

Sat May 12, 2012, 08:15 AM

48. Proposition 8 is a completely different thing. NC just amended its constitution.

If you think it is a federal issue, please tell President Obama. He says it's up to each state, and the Democratic Party appears to agree.

No judge in North Carolina can overturn a constitutional amendment. I explained the only way it can be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #48)

Sat May 12, 2012, 08:34 AM

49. California's Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment too

That's why I checked Wikipedia before I wrote that.
Proposition 8 was made part of the California Constitution before it was struck down.
They're exactly the same. A ballot proposition meant to become state constitutional law.

It will be overturned. If not by the state then by the federal.
Obama's public statement is the clue. And sure he's doing that pathetic half-measure thing by saying "left up to the states" but this can & will "evolve" too. I never believed he really had a problem with gays marrying.
He's being strategic in his statement like a true politician but the change is coming.
The demographics demand it.

By him going full out like that AFTER that bigoted amendment was passed is a GOOD thing.
If he said it before it passed & then it passed then it would make him look like a loser supporting as losing cause.
By coming out (ha!) AFTERWARDS he galvanizes the non-bigoted nation to push out those who would enact similar measures.
You were already going to fight after the amendment passed but NOW you will fight that much harder to change not just these bigoted policies but Obama himself.

That amendment won't last, trust me. And it will be based on the same reasoning seen in the same constitutional amendment passed by California through a similar ballot proposition.
John Lucas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Reply #49)

Sat May 12, 2012, 09:04 AM

52. I hope you're right. Thank you for your OP.

I have a more pessimistic view of the odds of changing North Carolina's constitution back anytime soon, but I appreciate your will to fight. It is inspiring.

One thing that may happen is that the federal government will enact laws that make it easier for people to get access to rights that are currently reserved to married people. If everybody had universal healthcare and individuals had other protections, then marriage would be less necessary.

In Europe the passage of universal health care and other rights to individuals resulted in many fewer people getting married. They don't have to be married to get access to these rights, so fewer couples are marrying. That may happen in the U.S. And so, the forces who claimed to "protect marriage" by discriminating against people may end up eroding the popularity of marriage. How ironic would that be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #57)

Sat May 12, 2012, 09:53 AM

58. Maybe so, but the vote in NC was real. 61% of North Carolinians added hate to the constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #58)

Sat May 12, 2012, 12:02 PM

68. Prop H8 failed in Alameda County.

Alameda Co = 12% black. Los Angeles Co. = 8% black.

Oh, and TODAY, LA County voting systems are STILL a mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #68)

Sat May 12, 2012, 12:34 PM

72. Please see my post in this thread, and elsewhere:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #57)

Sat May 12, 2012, 11:58 AM

66. Yes. I said at the time that Los Angeles Co. stank to heaven

and was dismissed. Well, it did stink and there was no credible recount. Ann Northrop and Andy Humm did a whole long segment on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #48)

Sat May 12, 2012, 11:14 AM

63. Prop 8 was also a constitutional amendment

And the NC amendment is subject to a federal court review (should someone bring suit).

It can be overturned by a Federal court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ruggerson (Reply #63)

Sat May 12, 2012, 02:09 PM

81. The prop 8 ruling was very narrow and only applied to California.

In CA gays had the right to marry. It was taken away by Prop 8. The court ruled rights could not be taken away. This is not the situation in NC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #81)

Sat May 12, 2012, 04:08 PM

87. The NC amendment can be attacked on various fronts

A strong argument could actually be made using Romer v Evans as precedent. The NC amendment imposes a similar "special disability" on gays and lesbians, as Justice Kennedy referred to in his eloquent majority opinion striking down Colorado's own ill conceived constitutional amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #37)

Sat May 12, 2012, 09:03 AM

51. SCOTUS is the key I think, and for that we need to replace 2 conservative justices

with ones willing to vote for an LGBT version of Lovings v Virginia.

That could forseeably happen in a second Obama term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #51)

Sat May 12, 2012, 09:04 AM

53. That would be wonderful. SCOTUS is always one important reason to vote Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #51)

Sat May 12, 2012, 11:16 AM

64. +1

Agreed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #31)

Sat May 12, 2012, 12:52 PM

75. Good catch, yardwork.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 09:30 AM

55. Well done sir.

I'm neither black or gay and see the exact same parallel between the oppression by sexual orientation and by race. They are EXACTLY the same thing, and to a large degree done by the same people with the exact same mindset.

Bravo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 10:18 AM

59. I wish some of these 'black voters' could see past his skin color.

 

'Some questioned whether he really believes what he says about gay marriage'
"Look, man — by any means necessary."

If they did, they would vote for his outstounding merit, track record and overall best candidate status.
This 'hold my nose, turn my head' due to his equal marriage stance but-I will vote because he's one us us is really disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zax2me (Reply #59)

Sat May 12, 2012, 12:41 PM

74. The suggestion ...

... that the phrase "look, man -- by any means necessary" means that this voter is voting for President Obama solely on the fact that he is African-American (and not because of outstanding merit, his track record and overall best candidate statuts) is quite a stretch.

I think it suggests at least what I would think an LGBT person would appreciate, the fact that this voter is smart enough not to allow something such as the President's stance on this issue dissuade him from his support for him (which, more than likely, is because of his outstanding merit and track record). It's called tolerance, but it's nice that you've repeated a right wing meme, here.

Can you at least appreciate the fact that he's not a single-issue voter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renaissance Man (Reply #74)

Sat May 12, 2012, 01:28 PM

78. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 10:41 AM

60. You're in good company - Julian Bond said many of the same things you're saying

On CNN a couple of nights ago.

How can we all begin to address this or start a productive dialogue if this subject is deemed too controversial to discuss. Organized religion is at the root of this, but if we can't address this problem, then how do things get better? Thank you for thoughtful post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 12:00 PM

67. The article's angle of approach leaves me a little uneasy

I appreciate the writer is definitely making an effort to tip toe through the issue - talking about homophobia in the socially conservative portions of the black community without trying to lay disproportionate responsibility on the black community for anti-gay laws. I'm not sure he succeeded, but the effort was there.

One thing I'd like to see more emphasized is that the President's endorsement carries more weight and power within that community than the largely white gay rights movement could ever hope for. That's why, despite what lacked in the President's statement, it remains a powerful advance for all of us.

In the wake of Prop 8, a lot of efforts have been made to divide the African-American and LBGT communities (to great sorrow and pain of LGBTers of color). I feel President Obama's endorsement is a big step in making those efforts fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Reply #67)

Sat May 12, 2012, 12:59 PM

76. I agree with you. The premise of the article is the same old stereotype.

As I've said all over DU since last Wednesday, I see no evidence that black voters in North Carolina were more likely to vote for the amendment than their white neighbors. In fact, I see some evidence to the contrary, as I point out upthread.

We know that NOM is trying to divide two historically strong Democratic voting blocs - black voters and gay voters. Both our groups vote for Democrats 70-90% of the time. It's natural for the Republicans and their minions to try to separate us. I'm not buying. I'm glad to see that very few people on DU are buying.

In North Carolina, we saw a genuine rainbow coalition attempt to defeat this amendment. Many black leaders - including the head of the state NAACP - came out strongly against the amendment. The news media isn't reporting that. We know why.

Thanks for this post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 12:24 PM

70. Great post!

Thank you for sharing it here, because I tend to avoid the Yahoo comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 12:26 PM

71. Great post! Big K&R!

(I've never used this smilie before! Glad I got a chance to finally put it out there)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 01:46 PM

80. Black people are not a monolith.

I have known black people who are for gay rights all the way. I have known some who were not. I have known black people who ARE gay. The truth is, it is the persons of color who ARE LGBT, who suffer most when people try to drive a wedge between the LGBT community and the AA community.

The bottom line is that when it comes to race, any race is going to have people who are for and people who are against gay rights. I refuse to buy into the articles, media, etc. that try to drive a wedge between the AA community and the LGBT community. Divided, we fall. United we stand. I firmly believe the only way to counter racism and homophobia and misogyny and any number of other types of prejudices is for those of us who face our own form of that prejudice to stick together and try to work together to the best of our ability to stop ALL of those prejudices from making it to another generation. I would love to see it all stop. Until it does stop, injustice to any of us is injustice to all of us.

I really appreciate your comments on the article. If we stick together, they will not be able to drive a wedge between us. They fear that...more than anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 03:56 PM

85. I honestly don't know what the fuck to say to this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 05:45 PM

91. The media

"I'm Black (& straight) & I'm disappointed that many of my people don't see the parallels between the disenfranchisement of Gays & the disenfranchisement of Blacks"

...and those pushing the disconnect have a clear agenda. The opposition is not a black thing, and to suggest otherwise is simply divisive nonsense.

I understand you were just responding to the article.

There are many, many extremely religious blacks who do see the parallels. I know many who are as religious as they come, and their position is the RW and those opposing equal rights are mean-spirited and evil.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 07:26 PM

94. Not shocking,

If this wasn't the result, I don't think Obama would have said anything about the issue until after the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 07:52 PM

96. Your comments mean so very much to me.

You spoke powerfully and eloquently, and I truly believe that you are a major force for good in this fight for equality.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Sat May 12, 2012, 11:55 PM

100. this whole gays vs blacks thing makes me uncomfortable,

partly because most african americans i know are gay.

partly because blacks are a small part of the population, so it seems odd to focus on this, as though they are the only reason we lost california and NC

if there is a real problem with homophobia in the black community, i wonder how detrimental these conversations are (you as an african american have every right to discuss this, i just mean i wonder how detrimental outside voices in what i think should be internal conversations, are)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Tue May 15, 2012, 12:06 PM

107. mighty big of 'em. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnlucas (Original post)

Tue May 15, 2012, 10:36 PM

110. Perhaps a respectful answer, especially to minority criticism

is to remind them that they are not welcome in the spiritual Temple of the person they would vote for. Mr. Romney. Not discriminated against as a black person, but discriminated against like most of us as a non-Mormon. I'm white, but I'll never forget the powerful tv B&W images of Selma, Alabama.

Consider that church's former and unconscionable and illegal stance barring black people then ... against the same today, Salt Lake City in 2012. It still survives...but only in Mormonism. They must be "sponsored". That's not hating. That's not bashing. That's a fact that is in their own writing. Everyone is welcome in Obama's church.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread