A hard headed, clear eyed look at gay marriage propositions, African Americans, the church

[HamdenRice]

I realize that everyone is disappointed that at exactly the same time we have this historic election of an African American president, a progressive state like California seems to take a giant step backwards from full equality for same sex marriage. I also realize there is a lot of anger, and above all disappointment because it looks like many of the massive numbers of people of color who turned out for Obama also voted for Proposition 8, and there is of course puzzlement at how any voter can reconcile this vote for Obama, a vote against racial discrimination, with a vote for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

I would suggest that everyone look at this with the cold, clear eye of political calculation to see what happened and figure out where we go from here. Some of the observations I'm going to make are not going to be popular, but I just ask you to realize I'm making observations about how people think about this issue, and not endorsing the way people think.

To put this in perspective, I also want to note that it's important to take a long term perspective. Brown v. Board of Education, which supposedly guaranteed desegregated classrooms, was decided 5 years before I was born, in 1954. In 1959 when I was born, almost no progress on a national scale had been made. As a school kid, I was an experimental lab animal in some half hearted bussing programs in the mid 1960s, and as late as 1970s -- 16 years after Brown -- when I visited my grandmother's farm in Virginia, there was still segregation of many facilities, such as lake beaches visible for everyone. Needless to say, it was only a half century after Brown that an African American was elected president, but schools and housing patterns in most cities are more segregated than they were in 1954

The Supreme Court, state supreme courts and state legislatures have only seriously begun to recognize the rights of gays and lesbians to be together, to have marriage-like rights, and to marry, within the last six or seven years. To expect that the implementation of these abstract rights into real life practice universally and nationally by now is just plain unrealistic by the standards of any other campaign for any right. There are going to be set backs ahead, just like there was one yesterday.

If you want to see these rights implemented universally and nationally, you're going to have to build some alliances and do a lot more organizing and educating, and part of that means looking in a clear eyed objective way at who voted for Prop 8 and why and figuring out which elements of those voters can be peeled off to your side.

I think a lot of assumptions are being made about why African Americans or other people of color would vote for Prop 8 -- assumptions that perhaps lump together different sub-constituencies who voted for it for different reasons, and if you lump them together too thoughtlessly, you lose the opportunity to figure out who to peel off.

There are a number of posts suggesting that is was just the impact of religion, which some people think is universally stupid. I don't really buy it. I grew up in the so called Black Church, and while some congregations of the Black Church are conservative, I don't think that's universal. The mainline Black Churches -- and here we are talking about the Baptists, African Methodist Episcopals, and Pentacostals -- are charismatic and evangelical, but they are not fundamentalist. If you did not grow up in a Protestant church, this may mean nothing to you. But the point is that ministers in the mainline Black Churches generally don't preach that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Hence, argument from the Old Testament passages that seem to condemn homosexuality generally don't carry much weight. It's just not the way most mainline Black Churches rhetorically address various issues.

Also, the African American community, while more religious than average American communities, are experiencing the same secularization that has affected society. Not every African American goes to church, in other words, and I don't think everyone who voted for Prop 8 was religious.

Lastly, and I hope this doesn't sound like I'm stereotyping gay men, but my experience growing up in various churches was that gay African American men tend to play an important role in Black Churches. Black Churches tend to skew heavily female and elderly of both genders, with young Black men, even married men, being substantially under-represented. Black gay men are oddly over-represented in Black Churches, in my experience, often playing an important role in the "artistic" aspects of Churches, such as the choir.

It's an odd, uneasy alliance because the churches do indeed condemn behavior it considers "immoral," but there is also a kind of "wink wink, nodd, nodd" recognition of the contributions of gay men in most Black Churches. This is really hard to explain if you haven't experienced it, and the social millieu of the Black Church.

Generally, the Black Churches have this very ambivalent perspective on "sin" that is not like the perspective of white churches. It is assumed that everyone "sins." "Hang out all night Saturday and be in church on Sunday morning," was one of the themes of James Baldwin (himself a gay black man brought up in the church.) The joke of the pastor having affairs with the attractive young women also grows out of the peculiar ambivalence about "sin" and sex in the Black Church. Frankly, there is not an obsession with chastity and sex to drive homophobia in the Black Church they way there is in southern fundamentalist churches or even the Catholic Church.

So while the religious extremism may have played a part, it is not convincing to me that it's the whole story or even most of the story.

I think the question we need to ask, and it's a troubling question, is whether we think that most of the people who voted for Prop 8 actually want to prevent gays and lesbians from having the actual substantive economic and legal rights of marriage, or want to criminalize same sex relationships, or by contrast had some other objections to the concept of gay marriage or the way it was implemented in California.

As objectionable as it is to most, I have to conclude that there is little question that there is now an unassailable majority of voters who think gays and lesbians should have all the substantive rights of "civil unions" but who for some reason object to the idea of the word "marriage" being applied to same sex unions, and -- this is the main point I really want to make as it applies to people of color -- the idea of this marriage right being enforced by a court as a "civil right."

What I'm trying to get at here is not to justify this point of view, but to suggest that this is a constituency that you can eventually peel off to your side if you play your cards right.

My basic point is that there is a constituency that you can reach that objects to the idea of marriage rights being seen as a civil right. To understand why you have to understand a bit about the civil rights movement and some of the effects of the feminist movement. Many African Americans see the civil rights movement as sui generis -- unique -- because of the history of slavery and Jim Crow. This idea is to some extent recognized in constitutional law. I don't want to give a lecture in constitutional legal history, but basically the SCOTUS struggled for many years after the Civil War over what kind of "discrimination" the Constitution prohibited under the 14th Amendment. All laws discriminate to some extent -- dog license laws discriminate against dog owners, and taxi license laws discriminate against taxi cab drivers compared to other drivers, for example.

For a sad long time, it was not racial discrimination but discrimination against corporations that the Court said the 14th Amendment prohibited. Then around 1938, during the New Deal, the Court decided that the 14th Amendment prohibited discrimination on the basis of (1) race, religion and national origin, (2) political rights, like voting and (3) fundamental liberties like free speech. This gave the modern civil rights movement a very special, privileged position in constitutional arguments.

The 14th Amendment and anti-discrimination law really were about race.

In the early 1970s, women began using the Constitution to get equal gender rights. By the late 70s, though, there was some backlash in the civil rights movement because it became clear that civil rights doctrine benefited white women more than people of color. Just look at the management of any corporation or professional practice, or the incoming class of any university. It was a remarkable achievement but also an unintended consequence of the melding of civil rights and gender rights.

This is not my conjecture; there was a lot of discussion and scholarship about this in the late 70s and early 80s, and a lot of consternation about letting other groups use "civil rights language" before the main task of the civil rights movement had been achieved.

So when the gay/lesbian rights movement came along in the 80s, there was a huge amount of resistance from within the civil rights establishment to applying the language of civil rights to yet another group -- the majority of whom were seen to be white and middle class.

Over time, the civil rights establishment did indeed for the most part embrace the logic of GLBT rights, but even the GLBT movement came to recognize the importance of the symbolism of NOT using the term "civil rights."

You may notice that there is a kind of coded agreement about how the major establishment civil rights, feminist and GLBT organizations talk about rights: African Americans and other minorities talk about "civil rights"; feminists talk about "equal rights" or "reproductive rights"; and the GLBT establishment talks about "human rights." This is pretty explicitly worked out in order to prevent backlash among the civil rights constituencies -- the idea of another group using "our struggle" to advance their own positions in society. Like it or not, many in the "rights" constituencies see rights talk as a zero sum game -- if women's rights are protected, the rights of people of color won't be; if GLBT rights are protected, the rights of women won't be; etc.

When state courts began to grant same sex couples marriage rights, most of them were really careful not to use "civil rights" language (called "strict scrutiny") to find that gays had such rights, and in fact the gay rights organizations that litigated these cases DID NOT want to use that language either. The Massachussets court went out of its way not to use the civil right test of "strict scrutiny" to find gays had marriage rights, for example, but used (bizarrely) the test ordinarily applied to discrimination against business corporations.

California, however, used "civil rights" language to grant gays and lesbians marriage rights. More precisely, it used the "civil rights" language that had been created for gender -- "semi-strict scrutiny" -- to grant gays and lesbians marriage rights.

Now I'm not saying that every uninformed voter who voted for Prop 8 knows about the technical rights language used to grant marriage rights in California. But I am saying that it is well documented that within the African American community there is a backlash against the use of 14th Amendment "rights language" -- language that the Court itself recognizes was designed to end slavery and Jim Crow -- to help groups perceived to be largely middle class and white. I'm not saying it's right; I'm saying it exists.

In other words, I believe there are people who support the substance GLBT economic and legal rights under civil unions, and can be persuaded to support full marriage rights, but we're going to have to come up with some new language, or we're going to have to ensure that no one perceives the use of "rights talk" for gays and lesbians as a dilution of the continued urgency of the unfinished agenda of civil rights.

[donco6]

1. So, we need to fight for rights, just don't call them "rights". Right?

Well, why don't we all just tie our hands behind our backs and hop on one foot while saying the Pledge of Allegiance backward? Once we've mastered that, then we may be worthy to address the GLBT struggle as a civil rights issue. But we have to keep hopping.

Sorry, but this screed sounds like we have to self-handicap ourselves with obscure language while avoiding any reference to the 14th Amendment because some people can't have their situations sullied with any comparison to ours. That's pretty sad.

[HamdenRice]

2. The first thing you need to do is get some sense of time scale

That's what the first part is about.

Second you need to get realistic about forging alliances and bringing people who support the substance of marriage to your side.

If you read carefully, you would realize that the third point is not to use certain specific kinds of rights talk, not avoid rights talk altogether.

[donco6]

3. Time scale - hmmm . . .

So, how long have gays been discriminated against? Not as long as racial minorities? The same? Longer? The reason our struggle for rights has seemed shorter is because the stigma of homosexuality has been so ingrained in our society that, until very recently, it was simply IMPOSSIBLE to admit you were gay at all! So, timeline is really quite irrelevant in this case.

Forging alliances - yes, it's very important. So when does the other side of the alliance start kicking in anyway? I mean, gays have been at the FOREFRONT of every major Democratic campaign in my lifetime. But as we have seen repeatedly, we cannot depend on our fellow Democrats to hold up their end of the bargain. How long are we to merrily go along, allowing ourselves to be used by others to gain rights for themselves, while those same people actively choose to deny those rights to us?

And lastly, I stand by my original statements. By restricting ourselves to certain "types" of rights talk, we handicap ourselves to the powerful arguments which may actually open the judicial doors to attaining those rights. This is foolish.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. When is the next march? I want to march by your side

not at you, but WITH YOU... and as a DEM, hold it INDIE, I get it. We need to make this unacceptable.

As to alliances, Hamdenrice has a point.... though also missed the little detail of all the code in the vile commercials

My first piece of advise... is to do what students of anti-Semitism have done... get the code and the taxonomy of the language... you may even be using it without realizing it. Me, will see if I can find the adds on youtube and literally start doing the taxonomy... and try to figure out why they played so well in Peoria, or should I say Poway?... and it is beyond the children by the by... and that use was vile but effective...

As to time scale... it took 2000 years for Jews to finally be able to own property, as in agricultural property... does that help you?

And no I hope this takes AT MOST ten years (and the USSC) to get it sealed and delivered at the legal level... it will take a tad longer for it to become operative in the society.

I mean when was the last time you heard a white openly call a black person a N****r (In fact two weeks ago I was called on my love of ahem N****rs in a pretty red area, but we, err I mean, I shamed the lady, socially shamed her)

But first things first, lets work on the taxonomy and those adds a gold mine

[HamdenRice]

7. You're trying hard not to understand

The time frame is between the date that the court recognizes a right and when it becomes a reality.

Compare:

1868: 14th Amendment ratified
1896: Plessy v. Ferguson
1954: Brown v. Board
1955: Brown II
1971: Richmond schools desegregated
1974: Prince George Country, Maryland desegregated
1975: Boston, Mass., in desegregation
1985: Kansas City, Missouri desegregated

Got that? The right was announced in 1868 in the Constitution, in 1954 in the SCOTUS, and was still being implemented in the 1980s.

If you want to believe that as soon as a court recognizes a right it becomes a reality on the ground, that's your prerogative, but don't be surprised if you are disappointed and thoroughly ineffective in actually getting anything done.

[donco6]

24. So, "be patient" is the message then?

I well understand the lag time between legal decisions and the changes of the heart that occur much later in the process. The conventional wisdom says it takes time and education and perhaps a generation or two to get to that point where something that was once a big issue is no longer so.

Or does it? Can we not expect more from those who should already understand the basic "wrong-ness" of discrimination based on sexual orientation? Can we not expect more from people who already understand the pain and humiliation of being treated as subhuman by their fellow citizens? People who availed of themselves a multitude of legal and legislative remedies to the point where courts simply ordered the end of such discrimination - much to the dismay of the majority who opposed those orders? Do we really have to reinvent the wheel when the injustice of our situation is so clear and unequivocal?

Or is it unfair of us to even attempt to abbreviate this process by availing of ourselves the same avenues used before us? You seem to be saying that those avenues are not allowed - like a drinking fountain with "Whites Only", we have to find some other place to quench our thirst.

I call bullshit on that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Actually I suspect the time lag will be much shorter

no, not 2000 years for you to be able to own land if you are Jewish in Western Europe, for sure 1000

No, not 100 like African Americans suffered (After the civil war, not including slavery, that means 300 or so)

Nor the sixty it took for Latinos to get recognized

I suspect a generation... that is 25 years... which is very long if you are in the middle of it.

And yes it will take a lot of education and it will take a lot studying the taxonomy of hate... and even then, some folks are going to be unreachable for a long time, as in ever... (right wing racist, white power groups for example)

That said... this needs to go to the court, the USSC, where this bullshit LEGALLY has to stop

But the LGBT community (and allies,) need to be ready to take to the streets... and do other NON VIOLENT actions

It is the same play book... and if need be... which I think is an error, change the words used....

To me this is a civil rights matter, period.

Now when is the next march? SERIOUS...

[Orsino]

28. It's never easy to ask someone to wait for equality, is it?

Leads to all sorts of contorted diction.

Keep pushing, everyone, in your own unique way. We'll get there.

[donco6]

44. When it becomes easy, there's something really wrong.

Dontcha think? Or is that too "contorted" for you?

[Orsino]

46. No, it should never be easy...

...as I said.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. When it becomes easy you won

a very bright person told me that one.. that was my mom

Her cousin had to change his last name to go to medical school, since Jews were not allowed in medical school

This was in the UK

He ended up serving as the Physician to the Royal Family... irony yes

A much younger relative of his, my brother, went to medical school no problem (in Mexico)

He didn't have to change his name either.

It was easy... and other relatives were able to go to colleges too... here in the good ol' US that had quotas at one time.

Did I mention that uncle of mine (who I never met) went to med school in the 1930s or so?

He had to struggle... when my brother didn't have to, either in Mexico, or in Canada, where he did his specialty, it meant that battle was over

And won in multiple countries.

And then you will your kids, the ones that don't have to struggle, even snicker at the effort... like many younger female kids these days don' get it.

Hard is when I started as a woman EMT in Mexico City

We were a fucking experiment. 120 of us. We were not allowed to work at night... too dangerous, we were not allowed to get into some specialties, and nobody would ever dream of letting two women go out on a call... for fear of sexual attack.

These days women man ambulances, 24\7... and crews are at times all female... I've talked to some of those young "kids"

So hope that you get to live to the point that people will go... you gay? So? can you do the job?

You gay? Ok, here is your license...

To the point where it is easy.

I suspect it will be a generation since attitudes are very different among younger kids... for whom things like a certain raid at a certain bar are not even part of their history (you know I bet, what I am talking about). Nor would they give a flying rats ass what you do at home. We will get there... we have in many other struggles

[CTyankee]

60. Some very clear "rights" talk from the CT Supreme Court

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice,” Justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”

Period, the end, and make no mistake about it.

[donco6]

68. Exactly.

The equal protection clause got it done in CT. And we're supposed to avoid this terminology because it offends people? I just think that's silly.

[CTyankee]

70. And the world spins on, on its axis, just like before!

Nobody has dropped dead from having gay marriage validated in CT.

[HamdenRice]

91. See below nt

[Toasterlad]

36. Wrong Place

[Prophet 451]

82. Fuck that

Way I see it, gay people have tried being polite. They're tried asserting their rights with lawsuits and the court of public opinion and that's very laudable, very noble and very civilised but there is something about humans that we won't accept a right as real unless it's torn from the bloodied fist of an oppressor.

So let's have some fucking riots. Assuming an average of 10% of the population, there's around 30 million gay people in the USA so let's have a million man march, let's march right up Pensylvania Avenue and spray a pink triangle on the Whitehouse gates.

In fact, if the right are so fucking scared of gay people, let's give them something to be really scared of. Let's put RuPaul on the news, let's have Ellen calling play-by-play on Monday night football and Rachel Maddow calling every major baseball game. Let's bring Quentin Crisp back from the fucking dead to teach literature in every high school in America. Let's make them sorry they ever, ever mentioned the subject.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Anecdotally the encounter on this is telling this morning

Or for that matter the student (AA) way back in the day when in a history class

This morning when I went to the store while waiting to open it, a young AA male and a latina woman were chewing the fat on it, and I confronted them

I told the young AA man, perhaps we should go back to the days of separate but equal (blunt, of course)

He looked at me with a view of horror, and I knew why by the way.

The young latina lady said, but what about the family?

I answered with a little known fact, "forty years ago I would not have been able to marry my husband, since I am latina and he is anglo, it was enshrined in the California Constitution)

After ten seconds, but my padre (in that sense the catholic church does have that influence)

Sure, they can start paying taxes... separation of church and state

The young AA man started to tell me that this was not about civil rights, so I reminded him some of the history, and that whites stood with his people back in the day... and that when we take rights away from one group, we set the groundwork to take rights from others.

In the end, they got it... too late to vote no, but they got it.

Twenty years ago we had a kid in a history class who was all PO'ed at the use of the word Negro in plenty of 19th century historiography, and after a lot of splaining he got it that we first needed to expose the language of hate before we could fight it, We need to understand the taxonomy of it. (And yes there is some hate involved, even among Latino and AA... and the former I know personally)

In some ways the civil rights movement is like the Holocaust for many Jews... and boy have I stepped on many a toe explaining to folks that the holocaust led to the death of 14 million people and that it is not that unique in western history.... nor is the Civil Rights movement... in fact, to me it looks like we have a struggle a generation and it is never over.

We need to reach out because i mean this, when I say that these crappy pieces of legislation demean us as a nation.

And yes I am proud to have now a new president elect... ain't he handsome? The WH staff must be very happy to have to think Mac and Cheese for the kids!

:-)

[JuniperLea]

6. If not religion

Then how would you explain the fact that 75% of the yes on 8 votes came from black women? Anti-civl rights? I think not. I can't see any good reason for this, other than churches preaching where they shouldn't be preaching, in politics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Having dealt with the community yes indeed the civil rights

is sui generis for them, like the holocaust is for Jews... (and as a child of the holocaust I step on it regularly)

So there is more than just religion going on... and from the exit polls it was more men voting yes than women

[JuniperLea]

13. So again, it's about education

Teaching people that this is a civil rights issue. I guess I assumed everyone got this, because I was shocked at the outcome here in CA.

This reminds me of the father of a friend of mine. When we were kids, I had no idea what a big deal her dad was to Jews...

http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/?en/saviors/norway/bert-bochove-s-story.4294.htm

He was a gem... a peach of a gem... a kind man always. He didn't do these heroic deeds for religious reasons. He did them for human reasons. Still, he's a celebrated hero among Jews and has a memorial in Israel. But no matter how much they want to make this about religion, I know differently... first hand.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. No beef, it is about education

:-)

And I fear it will take time

We also need to STUDY the code language used by the other side and UNDERSTAND it... so we can neutralize it

[marmar]

16. 75 % of yes on 8 votes from black women? Do you mean that 75 % of black women voted yes?

I don't think black women form a large enough percentage of California's electorate to constitue 75 percent of the vote on any measure.

[Lilyeye]

22. Blacks only made up 10% of the electorate. Whites were 63% and Latinos were 18%

[JuniperLea]

50. 75% of the black women who voted, voted yes on 8

[JuniperLea]

49. I said that wrong...

75% of the black women who voted, voted yes on 8.

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. That stat doesn't sound exactly right. 75 percent of the Yes on H8te vote is 4,032,318

I don't think there are that many black women in CA. Might you have meant that 75 percent of black women voted yes?

[marmar]

25. It couldn't be right.....and it bothers me when people spout erroneous stats as facts.

n/t

[JuniperLea]

48. Yes

75% of the black women who voted, voted yes on 8.

[theboss]

41. You have some words mixed up; black women made the difference. Not 75 percent of the total vote.

75 percent of black women voted yes on Prop 8, which is what put it over the top.

Black women - as a group - are probably the most religious group of people in the country.

[JuniperLea]

51. My wording was as bad as the prop wording! Doh!

Something akin to my mistake here could have easily been made by others in the voting booth. For or against, yes or no... it was a very poorly worded proposition.

The correct wording for me to have used here would have been, 75% of the black women in CA who voted, voted yes on 8.

[noiretextatique]

56. that's nonsense

you can't attribute prop 8's possible passing (all the votes have not been counted yet) to any particular group. all the idiots who voted for this travesty are responsible for it.

[theboss]

57. That's sort of what polling does

Obama won Florida largely because he flipped the Hispanic vote.

It doesn't tell the whole story, of course, but it's not designed to do that.

[noiretextatique]

59. no...it doesn't tell the whole story

and it's disingenious to claim prop 8 may pass because of black women. and stupid too.

[theboss]

61. Why do you hate math?

Whites voted against the measure 55-45.
Latinos went 50-50.
Blacks voted for it by a 69-31 margin.

If blacks vote 50-50, the measure does not pass.

This is important. If you want to win equality in the state, you need to know who to sway.

[noiretextatique]

62. what about whites and latinos? would the measure pass

if they voted in different proportions? isn't that MATH too :wtf:

[theboss]

64. I suppose.

But don't you see any concern with the fact that 7 of 10 blacks support discrimination?

[noiretextatique]

67. i am a black lesbian

i am concerned by all the bigots who voted for this POS. i am not stupid enough to blame it on one group though. here are a few rational thoughts for you:

1) all the votes have not been counted, so this POS may well be defeated

2) if it does pass, the CA Supreme Court will declare is unconstitutional

and none of this will matter...

[theboss]

71. I am a white straight dude

Nice to meet you.

I take it you do not like targeted advertising.

[noiretextatique]

80. no...i just don't think you can blame one group

i am appalled by all the people who voted for prop 8, and unfortunately, i am not at all surprised by the AA vote. some black people have a conservative religious streak when it comes to certain issues, this being one of them.

[noiretextatique]

63. dupe

[theboss]

58. In farines, I could provide a biography of every person who voted for this nonsense

That may provide the information you want.

It would only take 30,000 years to read.

[kevinbgoode]

9. This propostion was about CIVIL MARRIAGE...which is, after all

a CIVIL UNION. There is no requirement to seek religous endorsement for a CIVIL MARRIAGE. The proposition, and the support for it by CHURCHES, was an attempt to force the government to adhere to religious doctrine and abrogate its constitutional responsibility to serve and protect ALL citizens. There is no excuse for voting for this measure.

I am tired, for one thing, of African-Americans telling me not to compare MY struggle for FUNDAMENTAL rights to theirs - particularly when legal, civil MARRIAGE was one right THEY struggled to achieve. One wonders just how ignorant many members of that minority are of their OWN history - of being denied the right to marry even within their own race because of the slavery and property rights laws.

Moreover, I am a middle-aged gay man. It does not reassure me to explain that I should be hopeful that, one or two or three generations past my lifetime, someone might be able to secure their GOD-GIVEN rights in this alleged "land of the free." This concept isn't rocket science. Do people think the gay population doesn't have its own horror stories of treatment, violence, refusal of service, and denial of even basic burial rights? That we haven't suffered our own indignities?

And yet why am I. . .once again. . .asked to "understand" the cultures of the Mormons...of the Catholic Church...of the black churches. . .of the looney tune evangelical churches, even as we all admit their motives are profit-driven, cynical abuses of spirituality for earthly greed and power? Do people really think that, if the pedophile priest scandal had ever taken place in a smaller, less powerful church, that the government would turn its head for over 50 years and allow the Church to continue pretending it has a clue about morality? Or that the hypocrisy of a power-driven, greed-oriented communal Church based in Salt Lake City was founded on principles of polygamy which they were FORCED to abandon by the OTHER religious groups running the U.S. government? Or that black churches, created out of the cradle of segregation and out of the despair of slavery and of forced "Christian" evangelism, cannot learn enough from their own suffering not to inflict it on others?

This is yet another election where MY people were asked to sacrifice our constitutional rights - and our money - and our time - and our energy - for candidates who still don't recognize that we are born, inherent, full American citizens. How many decades shall we wait for a candidate to maybe decide it might be politically feasible to recognize my citizenship? How many friends will I bury as their immoral but legally-recognized "family" members swoop out of nowhere and pillage the home and the belongings and the very funeral of a gay friend? What, exactly, do these other groups need to understand?

These churches do much of their business causing heartache and suffering in the homes of those they oppress. They are not houses of God - they are businesses hawking God as a specially-designed product to maximize profit. In exchange, they take the hardships of others and gloss them over with hope, and when that doesn't always work, they cultivate the hate and the fear and the smear with glee and pride and pretend honor. And then the Democratic Party expects us to "understand."

My rights were not given me by the Catholic Church. Or the black Church. Or the Mormon cult. I was created with certain rights, among those being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Protecting those rights is my government's responsibility, not turning its head when every serpent from a superstitious deity wants to rear its ugly head and seek out a new victim for profitable persecution.

Please....don't EVER ask me to vote for ANY candidate again who will not accept my rights as a full....FULL...American. No political party has the privilege of asking a group of Americans to sacrifice their God-given rights in order to secure power.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Part of the education will include getting AA to understand that the Civil Rights

movement is not sui generis... but that indeed it happens every generation with a new group.

As I have said it above, I step on this every time I tell my fellow Jews, you know what the holocaust was NOT that special, and in fact it is part of a current of western civ.... and the 20th century has way too many holocausts.

I get a similar reaction.

But that will have to be one of the top priorities, and yes I am willing to do that

[alarimer]

11. Our candidates should have come out against it.

To my knowledge, neither Obama nor Biden were very strong in their condemnation of Prop 8. Please correct me if I am wrong. Because California was an automatic for Obama, nobody even went to California to campaign. The Democratic Party should have come out forcefully against this Proposition, officially and in no uncertain terms. It's not as if it could have cost them California. They are just a bunch of chicken-shits from top to bottom.

Equal rights for all, here and now. I know that Obama's position is that it is a state issue but he is wrong about that. It is a NATIONAL issue (what happens when couples marry in California and then move to some other state. IF they do not have the same rights as heterosexuals, that is discrimination, end of discrimination). Codify it nationally and it will apply to all states. And we will have seen the last of these propositions. Time for some right-think individual to get up there and take the state. But Democrats are a bunch of spineless weasels (including and maybe especially Obama and Biden) and need to just stand up and do the right thing for once in their careers and fuck all those stupid bigots that vote against. Those pieces of shit need to shut up right now. Shove it down their goddamn throats like with civil rights in 1964 and let the chips fall as they may.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Feinstein ran adds, And both obama and Clinton ran robocalls

[Fumesucker]

14. I don't think you understand white fundies as well as you think you do..

Frankly, there is not an obsession with chastity and sex to drive homophobia in the Black Church they way there is in southern fundamentalist churches

Eh, we just watched an unwed babymama and the sperm donor feted at the NRC for consuming oxygen.

The fact of the matter is that the more fundagelical the church, the higher the divorce rate, the higher the rate of teenage pregnancy and the more hypocritical the attitude toward sex in particular and sin in general.

In the white fundie churches it isn't religion driving homophobia, it's homophobia driving the interpretation of scripture, I doubt it is that much different in many black churches.

[Chovexani]

19. Hmm.

In the white fundie churches it isn't religion driving homophobia, it's homophobia driving the interpretation of scripture, I doubt it is that much different in many black churches.

You're right about this, and this is where I think the OP is a little off base. Blacks engage in that same kind of scriptural chicanery to justify their prejudices, as often and with as much vigor as whites. That said, the sexphobia in black fundie churches expresses itself in a different way than in white fundie churches, necessarily because of historical context. There is a strong undercurrent to black homophobia that sees non-heterosexuality as yet another weapon in the attack on the black family. White fundies like to talk a lot of nonsense about "the family being under attack" because it no longer looks like Leave it to Beaver. What they don't realize is that even back then, Beaver was secretly lusting after Dennis the Menace, June was on pills and Ward was really wanting to be Wanda (not to equate prescription abuse with being LGBT, far from it, it's just that this is how the fundie sees things). They're longing for a so-called golden age that never really existed.

Not so with the "attack on the black family" meme. That one is based in very real fears--after all, our families were literally broken up during the slave trade, and we've never really recovered from it. Black men were demonized as sexual predators out to steal white women and black women were demonized as Jezebels, temptresses and witches. Religion became the glue that held us all together in the face of oppression, from way back in the slave era when services were used as planning meetings for escapes and those moving Negro spirituals were code. The homophobia I run into again and again from family members and other black folks is that I and other black queers, particularly queer black women, is that we're destroying the black family with our "sin". That we're somehow selfish traitors who have been brainwashed by white hedonists to turn our backs on God and the race. I have been told by more than one black homophobe (including my aunt just last night) that my duty as a black woman is to marry a good black man and have black babies as Jesus intended, to edify the race. It's batshit insane and hateful but it's rooted in fears that go back centuries, and it's why framing the issue as a rational, rights thing doesn't work.

That does not make the fear any more valid, or excuse the homophobia it leads to, by any means. It's just an explanation for it, is all.

[Fumesucker]

30. Thanks, that was a good explanation..

It's batshit insane and hateful but it's rooted in fears that go back centuries, and it's why framing the issue as a rational, rights thing doesn't work.

As someone once said, you can't reason someone out of a position that they never reasoned themselves into in the first place.

They're longing for a so-called golden age that never really existed.

You got that right!

[Chovexani]

34. lol, that's a great line

I'm going to have to steal that one about reasoning people out of a position they never reasoned themselves into. :rofl:

[Gwendolyn]

52. This is how it's been explained to me. n/t

[Chovexani]

15. My thoughts.

I grew up in the black church too, and there is that wink wink thing with the gay choir directors but you'll notice at not one of those churches does any of those men dare talk about their lives outside of church. You won't ever see them holding their partner's hand in the pews or bringing them to the fashion show/children's parade/BBQ. And lesbians are damn near invisible--you sure as hell won't see them on the Deaconess board.

Yes, it is purely an issue of religion--but it's a very narrow kind of religion, and bullshit nationalism and machismo clinging to religion. It comes out with every proclamation that "God is in control".

I agree that framing it as an issue of rights is a problem and won't work. Black folks don't take too kindly to people challenging their hypocritical clinging to Jesus in the name of hating, same as any other group afflicted by Talibornagainism. But neither is the answer sending in middle-upper class white men to lecture conservative black congregations about tolerance.

Y'all keep missing the forest for the trees. We have a perfect, ready-made set of folks who can win hearts and minds for equality. That would be LGBT people of color, who know best how to speak to larger communities of color. But we are rendered completely invisible in these debates because everyone tries to frame this as a gay vs. black issue. Everyone, even our so-called allies. I keep beating this drum because it's so painfully true. The only time you ever see queer people of color on tv or in the news are on tawdry "down low" exposes, or as street people or crime victims. You never see Janice and Tamara struggling to raise their three kids in Atlanta. Something like 40% of same-sex families raising children are families of color yet we represented almost none of the No on 8 ads. How is the LGBT community possibly going to reach the black church when it can't even see the black and brown in its own midst?

Part of the reason we're invisible is because those gay choir directors don't come out at church, and to their families, they compartmentalize and live freely except on Sunday when they dive into those closets with the doors made of glass. And can you really blame them? The larger LGBT community for the most part suffers from the same race blinders and defensively clings to white privilege whenever challenged on the subject, just like the straight community. The conditioning you get by growing up in a racist society does not disappear just because you love someone of the same sex, which is something that a lot of white LGBT have a hard time dealing with and get defensive about. Just google Shirley Q. Liquor to see what I'm talking about. That, incidentally, is why gay bars and LGBT community centers are far more segregated for the most part than their straight counterparts, and why damn near every large city has separate black Pride events. Ironically, the most racially diverse gathering places are the MCC churches.

Now I am not trying to say the entire LGBT community is hopelessly racist. That's not the case at all. There are many, many good white LGBT people who brook no nonsense and have worked tirelessly for anti-racism and for the rights of people of color. I'm not trying to denigrate the entire community, or I wouldn't love and consider myself part of it. But it's a fact that racism is a problem in the LGBT community, as is classism, sexism, ableism and every other -ism under the sun. A lot of black LGBT simply don't identify with it, and so they stick to themselves or they stay in the closet so that they can keep the only community and support system they have, which for many is the church. Coming out for a lot of black LGBT means choosing between their church family and their partners. Having no use for dogma or organized religion in any form I chose the latter and didn't look back, but my heart aches for those still in that environment trying to live a double life. For good or ill, the church represents community for a lot of black folks.

I think a huge part of the answer is increasing the visibility of LGBT people of color. Let's put to rest once and for all the harmful myth that gayness is some kind of decadent white sin. Part of that means some of our closeted black celebs need to get the fuck over themselves and come the fuck out cause they're not fooling anyone (Ms. Dana Owens, I'm looking at you). We need more John Amaechis out there to show people that all gay people don't look like Ellen and Elton. At the same time, when someone like Isaiah Washington runs his ignorant mouth, our straight black allies need to speak up and call them on their bullshit rather than pulling ranks and protecting the "brother". And the "professional gays" set needs to put more PoC on the boards of organizations and on TV as spokespeople. Nearly every time there is an LGBT-specific civil rights issue under debate, the LGBT side is represented by a white person. Once in a blue moon you'll see a black person, and you'll almost never see a Latin@ or API. So long as the face of LGBT equality is portrayed as lilywhite, black 'phobes can stay comfortably in denial about the fact that they're voting against their own sons and daughters.

Also, LGBT people of color need support from the greater LGBT community and straight allies for our organizations. Even 'phobes have heard of Human Rights Campaign but how many have heard of the National Black Justice Coalition? I know a lot of queer grassroots orgs hurt for money all the time but ours seem to hurt that much more. And if we confront racism in our community and make it a safer place for all of us, more black LGBT people will feel comfortable to come out because they'll have someplace else to go if they get rejected by their church family. It's a happy cycle, really.

So there's a lot of things we could do. I don't know if all of them will work. But I do know that Operation Blame the Negroes and Mexicans helps no one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. May I add hispanics who are LGBT?

Or even a smaller groups... Mexican Jews.

You are right, the groups represented have to expand, because they are there.

That said, for hispanics what MIGHT help is the fact that the home country is getting more open about it (and I am happy for my cousin)

One reason... public health... the other... people have gotten really noisy (and good for them)

Now consider me an ally... to me it is this simple... taking rights away from a group, diminishes us all.

[Chovexani]

21. Of course

One thing that heartened me about the results was seeing that young Latinos overwhelmingly voted no.

I read a story today about the lack of Spanish-speaking No on 8 folks. One guy said that he was wanting to help do outreach in Spanish-speaking communities and he called and called but could not get any info about bilingual phone banks or any help in making Spanish language No on 8 materials.

I think sometimes these orgs make assumptions about groups and then refuse to do outreach because they think it's not worth it to put their limited resources into an effort that won't bear fruit. I think of the HIV/AIDS efforts by grassroots Latino organizers and think it was a real wasted opportunity. Instead of pointing fingers and dismissing entire groups we need to build bridges and talk about things.

Thanks for being willing to stand with us. :hug:

[KitSileya]

69. Sounds like one needs to adapt the 50-state strategy for this. nt.

[Chovexani]

78. I think it would really help.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Absolutely.... a fifty state strategy is needed

like in OTHER civil rights struggles in the past

[Cronus Protagonist]

18. Someone post a summary please

No time for all that today.... but it might be interesting, who knows?

[justiceischeap]

27. A bit of history - June 28, 1969 is when the GLBT "Human Rights" Movement began

The Stonewall riots were a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations against a police raid that took place in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969 at the Stonewall Inn, in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of New York City. They are frequently cited as the first instance in American history when gays and lesbians fought back against a government-sponsored system that persecuted homosexuals, and they have become the defining event that marked the start of the modern gay rights movement in the United States and around the world.

American gays and lesbians in the 1950s and 1960s faced a legal system more anti-homosexual than some Iron Curtain countries.<2> Early homophile groups in the U.S. sought to prove that gay people could be assimilated into society, and they favored non-confrontational education for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. The last years of the 1960s, however, were very contentious, as many social movements were active, including the African American Civil Rights Movement, the Counterculture of the 1960s, and antiwar demonstrations. These influences, along with the liberal environment of Greenwich Village, served as catalysts for the Stonewall riots.

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

Emphasis mine

I am the first to state I know nothing about what it feels like to be an African-American in the United States--though I've seen some of the bias first hand. However, to me it seems silly for a group that struggled so much to try and "own" language that may very well help others who are oppressed. Yes we may be white, middle class people but we are still killed for being gay, we are still fired or not hired for being gay, we can still be denied housing because we are gay, we can lose our children just for being gay and in some states we can still be arrested because we commit "sodomy." I think the issue is that for most in the gay community, you can't see our differences, our "gayness" nor should that be a prerequisite for civil, equal, human rights.

Rights is rights and as human beings, not African American human beings, I would hope that community would understand the desire, actually, the need for civil, equal, human rights. (I've decided to use all of them so if I'm going to offend someone, I'll offend everyone). As I tell people who don't really understand what it's like to be gay, it's no fun to be the butt of a joke that's still okay to be told in the open.

[Chovexani]

33. Something about Stonewall that a lot of people forget

Back in those days the Stonewall Inn did not look anything like the Starbucks type places that pass for bars today. It was a dive bar frequented by Puerto Rican hustlers among other folks. Some of those drag queens throwing bottles at the cops were black and Latina.

In GDP someone mentioned Bayard Rustin. A black gay man without whose influence on MLK and efforts during the civil rights movement, Barack Obama would not be President-Elect today. But you don't ever hear anything about him.

The issue is not that straight black homophobes can't understand that you're oppressed because you can "hide" your gayness. You can speak till you are blue in the face about the struggles LGBT face but you still benefit from white privilege, and until you acknowledge that, you will not get anywhere with them, rightfully or not. Hell you may not ever get anywhere with the pathologically churchified segment of black homophobes because the fucked up mix of fear, misguided, defensive machismo and Talibornagain religiousity that blends together to form the black homophobe is never going to see you as anything other than a white hedonist trying to equate your sinful lifestyle with the black struggle. You and I know that is a hateful, hateful pile of bigotry and lies but I swear to Ceiling Cat that is the truth of how they see it. It's like trying to change Dobson's mind. You cannot fight that kind of entrenched irrational, magical thinking with logic, it's just impossible.

That said, writing off the entire black community as a hopeless bunch of homophobes is a mistake. Number one because there are a hell of a lot of black LGBT and we suffer just as much as you do when these hate crimes masquerading as referenda take place. Acknowledge our existence and ask us how you can be allies. Commit to anti-racism in the LGBT community, and you will see more black LGBTs coming out and wanting to work with you to combat homophobia in all] communities. Especially among the younger generation, the homophobia is more about macho posturing than religion, and that can be worked with. I've done it myself. But it's not going to come from people externally imposing it--it's got to come from within the community. If white LGBTs want to fight homophobia in communities of color, the best way for you to do it is reach out to us. We already speak the language, we know the cultures. Instead of flailing about how you can't understand why black people are so homophobic, drop http://www.nbjcoalition.org">these folks a donation or two. Trust me, they could use it. And while you're at it, encourage people to stop paying money to see people like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Knipp">Shirley Q. Liquor. That sort of thing does nothing to encourage LGBT of color to participate in the larger LGBT community.

As I've said repeatedly today, we can hardly get black folks to agree on black civil rights (Ward Connerly much?). The best thing to do if you want to combat homophobia in racial minority communities is to ask your LGBT brothers and sisters who are also members of those communities how you can help, and more importantly, listen to what we have to say.

[justiceischeap]

55. I agree that outreach is lacking

I think organization as a whole is lacking within the gay community. I'll pass on your wisdom to a friend of mine who works at HRC. Hopefully more of our black LGBT brothers and sisters will work on educating the white part of the community and as a whole we can stand together to defeat this bigotry.

[Zhade]

29. Take that separate-but-equal bullshit elsewhere.

"Democratic Underground DOES NOT permit homophobic bigotry and DOES NOT welcome members who oppose equal rights for all." - Skinner

[kwassa]

35. If he said separate-but-equal, you might have a point.

But he didn't, and your point is moot.

Read his post.

[EFerrari]

66. Learning how to build a coalition is not bigotry.

[Ex Lurker]

31. whenever a minority group achieves a semblance of equality

their natural inclination is to pull the ladder up after them. It's human nature, sad but true.

[baldguy]

32. Boot the Xtian Talibanis, the neocons and the fascists - get back to their roots.

[Cardboard]

37. Consider this idea instead

....To me, Marriage is a religious idea or institution that is an integral part of most all religions...or even at the minimum, to a non religious person, marriage is a ceremony that affirms the commitment of 2 people in a way that is significant to both people.


The government should not be meddling in the social arrangements that any 2 given people make amounst themselves. The government should not concern itself with who is or is not married. If you can go in that direction then you could go for a universal civil union legislative course that would cover both gay and straight couples concerning shared property, etc etc. In this way you separate state from church so to speak and at the same time you'd likely be able to generate a lot more support from a broader range of people.

[eridani]

85. Right. Let me know when people start taking child custody cases to church instead of to court n/t

[Toasterlad]

38. I Only Skimmed Your Post, As It Was Too Long and Boring, But I Think I Got the Gist:

What you're basically saying is that, because it took time for African-Americans to gain equality, we must expect it to take time for gays to gain equality.

Horseshit.

It is presicely BECAUSE of the civil rights movement that this "time delay" for gay rights is ludicrous. As a nation, we've fought the battle for civil rights. We've lived through "separate but equal". It is beyond insane to fight these battles again for gay rights.

We are due our rights NOW. And we will NOT sit quietly until the rest of the country wakes up to the inevitability of those rights. Stop telling us to be patient. Grab a phone, grab your wallet, grab a pitchfork, or grab some wood, bub. Just get out of the way.

[HamdenRice]

40. I want cancer cured RIGHT NOW!

After all, they cured polio!!1 It is beyond insane to cure this disease when the avenues available to cure polio are already there!!1!

[Bluenorthwest]

42. The fierce urgency of the now

means nothing?

[donco6]

43. Total straw man.

And you know it.

[mtnester]

45. You actually used a disease reference

in a discussion about gay rights and timelines

Did you think that through or just shove it out there?

oh, and tic toc

[HamdenRice]

53. yeah I thought it through

racism and homophobia are well represented metaphorically as diseases.

[JVS]

47. Cancer is something we don't know how to cure, discriminatory law is something we know the cure for.

[HamdenRice]

54. Wrong

How to actually implement any rights regime is something that has to be re-fought and re-thought each time.

History does not in fact repeat itself.

[CTyankee]

73. Well, we did it pretty well in CT and armed insurrection has not taken place.

Our Supreme Court applied the equal protection clause in our state constitution. And the voters firmly rejected calling a Constitutional Convention for the express purpose of undoing that decision. There comes a time when you just have to DO IT!

[HamdenRice]

89. Have you actually read the full opinion of the Connecticut court?

It was incredibly creative and used an entirely different kind of rationale compared race discrimination cases. In fact, the position taken by Connecticut is closer to the rationale I suggest in the OP than you have represented it.

It was an entirely new kind of rethink of same sex marriage rights -- just as women's rights cases was a complete rethink compared to race discrimination cases.

I would urge you to inform yourself about what the Connecticut and sister state Massachusetts court actually did to pioneer same sex marriage law.

[CTyankee]

94. I promise that I will compare your analysis with that of the CT court.

For now, I am pointing out the overall basis, that of equal protection, applied to the issue of gay marriage. I was only saying that the equal protection clause is not a terribly new rights basis! But I will certainly do the homework and in particular, read your analysis more closely, which is always a good idea...

[HamdenRice]

96. Here's a framework

I apologize in advance for any snarkiness in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4397043&mesg_id=4404084

The main idea is that once you've decided on equal protection, you still have to figure out why this particular category of people comes under the equal protection clause.

[CTyankee]

97. As you yourself has pointed out in your posts, the thinking on equal protection evolved.

There is ample reason to believe that this evolution is now at work when it comes to gay civil marriage. As I understand it, evolution occurred with the CT decision, taking it further along the progressivity scale than even the MA decision. That's fast "catch up" and it is encouraging.

But you are right to stress public education on this issue. And it is also a question of leadership. I am hopeful. President Obama will have the chance to appoint 2 or maybe 3 justices to the SC and this could be a watershed event. I refuse to believe that we could not achieve equality in marriage in this country...and I say this as a straight, white, married senior citizen.

[HamdenRice]

98. Yes, that's exactly right and thanks for actually working to understand

Massachussets used the "rational relationship" test to strike down marital discrimination, the test usually used for ordinary legislation, like business discrimination. Connecticut did indeed go further, using the test ordinarily applied to gender, the "quasi strict scrutiny" test usually used for gender.

California used the "strict scrutiny" test ordinarily applied to race, religion and ethnicity cases.

That probably wasn't a good idea for a movement trying to build an alliance with the African American and Latino communities, and was completely unnecessary to get the right result. Also, it simply doesn't make sense in terms of legal or historical analysis. Ironically, the Mass. approach is in some ways a more severe indictment of marital discrimination because Mass said that such discrimination makes no sense whatsoever.

My understanding is that the gay and lesbian litigation strategists have over the years generally tried to stay away from strict scrutiny, so I'm puzzled why California did this. I would like to see the briefs.

[Toasterlad]

88. Wow. At First I Thought You Were Just Verbose and Tedious.

Now I see that you're an idiot.

[Skittles]

81. I agree with Toasterlad

I'm sick of the excuses given to justify treating gays and lesbians worse than second-class citizens - enough already.

[ibegurpard]

39. It will come

Things have changed SO much on this front since I was young. Should people be free to marry who they choose? Of course. Public opinion is changing on this every day. It will happen.

[EFerrari]

65. You make a very important point about respecting the people who gave their lives

for the Civil Rights Movement.

And I believe that with respect and sensitivity, the language that invokes those heroes can and must be invoked. Not cheaply, not as a dog whistle -- and that's the problem. When something becomes popular, it degrades.

It needn't be a dilution but more a natural extension of the effort. And it needs to be approached with the kind of reverence we bring to those who have fought beyond their capacity to better our lives beyond our ability to achieve alone.

That's what the Freedom Riders understood. They can't shoot us all. They can't stop us all. But if we turn on each other, we only provide the enemy with nice, big, easy targets. We should know better by now.

[nichomachus]

72. Just a historical note

Gay people were being persecuted -- jailed and murdered -- long before Africans were taken as slaves. So, we've been on the road a lot longer.

And someone needs to get the word out to African Americans that they don't own the 14th Amendment. Actually, that should be their ministers' job. The ministers are evil -- along with all the other religious "leaders" who lied to their congregations.

[EFerrari]

75. Thank you -- we don't have enough ugliness, one upmanship or division here.

[ColbertWatcher]

74. *** REC #6*** Thank you for posting. n/t

[Liberalynn]

76. The fourteenth amendment

says person period. Whatever the intent of its initial writer, the word person meaning all of us, was what was actually written into LAW. It doesn't just protect the rights of one group.

It is the CONSTITUTIONAL LAW of the land all ready, and we can't pick and choose when and whether we obey it or not, or we might as well just take it out of its protective glass case and rip it to shreds right now, and quit the pretense.

Look I studied the civil rights movement so I don't need a history lesson. I will always regret that I was born too late to participate.

As a woman I am part of a class who was discriminated against too. Though many would deny even that women were discrimated against too. So yes, I am glad that people like Susan B. Anthony, Sojurner Truth, Federcik Douglas, and Dr. King fought long and hard for all our rights. I don't need to be told that I owe them a debt I can never possibly ever repay.

But they key is they already fought for and won all our rights, not just some of our rights, and to pretend otherwise is a disservice to all their memories.

I do not think it is right therefore that I sit silent while a fellow American is having their rights denied. Would Douglas, or King want me to? Would Anthony or Truth want me to?

I can't rewrite what was done to any of them before the fourteenth amendment, though by God I wish I could. Maybe by standing up for gay rights even though I am straight is my way of saying thanks to all those pioneers who came before and gave me my own rights. All that is left to me is to fight for the present and the future, and to preserve the legacy of human rights they left behind.

We shouldn't have to be refighting the fight they all ready fought for, died for, and won. And I am sorry but shame on any of one of us who would not demand that the laws they fought for be enforced NOW, or make any argument for the fact that they are not being enforced for all people, all ready, now and forever.

No one should be allowed to be discrimated against period and the time to stand up and decry the injustice is now. Not for some more appropriate time later down the road, when it is more politically convinient for everybody.

If the fourteenth ammendment doesn't protect one of us, it protects none of us and the Constitution isn't worth the paper it is written on.

It isn't about who fought harder or longer for what. It isn't about black rights, hispanic rights, gay rights, womens right etc. Its about HUMAN RIGHTS. We need to cut the division as Obama has asked us too and speak as one HUMAN RACE for HUMAN RIGHTS.

We are not each others enemies here and until we realize that, it dosen't natter how many elections the democrats win. Because the ignorant tyranny that would suppress the rights of any one of us, will still have won, as long as we deny any fellow human being their rights.

It may be rhetoric but I still believe it. We stand together or we fail alone.

WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT PERIOD and why won't any one answer me that?

[ColbertWatcher]

77. "we're going to have to come up with some new language" What about ...

... "Constitutional visibility/invisibility?"

One of the concerns gay people have is that the words "gay, lesbian, transgender, (etc.)" do not appear in any of the legislation providing protections against discrimination. Hence, resigning them to a status of invisibility.

[Liberalynn]

79. They are not invisible

They are PEOPLE and they are all ready protected.

We just need elected officials with the guts to stand up and protect the damn Constitution which they swear an oath to do. They need to think less about elections and more about actually governing.

Where is their damned precious respect for their own precious bible, when they put their hand on it and LIE to their own God? Because thats what they do when they swear to uphold the constiution and then don't. They lie.

Why aren't these people who are supposed to be so concerned about religion concerned about that? LYING IS A SIN ACCORDING TO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, at least that what I was taught in Cahtolic School. But then they lied to me about a lot of other things too.

If any individual rejects any part of the Constitution and refused to enforce it, then they should not run for a U.S. Government office at all, and they certainly shouldn't swear an oath to the constitution.

They should run for Pope or Bishop, or whatever in their church, but not as a U.S. Government offical, if their personal religious beliefs are so insulted by the law of the land.

Why aren't we holding them accountable to the oath that they swear to the Constitution or doesn't the Constitution matter any more?

Or is our professed love of the Constitution just lip service, that everyone pretends? Cause it sure seems that way to me right now, even here among some fellow Democrats.

People get so upset if a flag is burned, but why do so few seem to be upset that the Constitution is being burned?

Can you answer that? Why Not?

[ColbertWatcher]

92. That is my point.

The OP is asking for new language. A new way to talk about rights.

My suggestion was to use the phrase of "Constitutionally invisible" or some variation.

I came up with the idea based on one of the criticisms I heard about the invisibility of gays in the "Vote No on 8" commercials. Also, when new laws are written to provide protection for people (i.e. employers cannot discriminate against a person based on race, nationality, gender, religion, etc), guess which group of people are rendered "invisible" by their exclusion from the law?

I think my suggestion can work because of exactly everything you've posted.

[ColbertWatcher]

100. Link to OP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4389779&mesg_id=4389779

[BronxBoy]

83. Well thought out post....

But I gotta disagree with you.

Our community, more than any other in this country, should know what the hell disenfranchisement is all about. I'll be blunt; There is an undercurrent of homophobia that runs beneath the surface of our community and it's time to talk about it.

I disagree with your assessment that religion plays no part in this. Turn on Black talk radio and listen when the issue of equal rights for Gays are brought up and you will here PLENTY of callers defend homophobia from a religious perspective.

When the Donny McClurkin episode broke out over the summer, I wrote an OP here about how the Black community had problems with dealing with issue of homosexuality and that, quite frankly, we were being very hypocritical in adopting the language of religion to justify unequal treatment. For every statement that that a Black person can pull from the Bible supporting homophobia, I could probably find just as many that were used to justify Slavery and the subjugation of our people.

Black people by and large also bristle, absolutely bristle, at any suggestion that the struggle of the GLBT community somewhat parallels our struggle in the civil rights movement. Personally I think it's bullshit to get so wrapped up in the sanctity of the Civil Rights movement that no one can't compare the other struggles to what went on with it. While I don't have proof of it, I think there is a mentality that says "How dare those fags compare their struggles with what we went through" Not trying to be disrespectful but I know that's how a lot of people feel.

So maybe so our community may need to be talked to in a certain way. Or maybe we need to be told we have our heads up our ass and buying in to a belief system that turns other American citizens into second class citizens is the height of hypocrisy considering where we've come from. I mean, we'll celebrate James Baldwin in February but you better shut the fuck up about him being Gay. It's our version of the don't ask, don't tell policy.

And aside from denying people equal rights, this homophobia is a prime reason we are the number one group when it comes to new cases of HIV\AIDS.

So yeah: Black folks got their collective heads out of our asses about this

[dkofos]

87. PROP 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

That is all you need to know

[HamdenRice]

90. You've raised the most difficult issue: Can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional?

It certainly can't be unconstitutional under the California Constitution. It may or may not be constitutional under the federal constitution. Remember, so far all the SCOTUS has decided is that gays and lesbians have a right to have personal relationships, not the right to marry. The Colorado case may provide grounds for finding the California amendment unconstitutional, but legally it's not as clear.

I wouldn't risk litigating it now under the current set of justices. In fact, I think the legal strategists of the GLBT movement have avoided the SCOTUS and focused on state courts for exactly that reason. Wait until Obama appoints a few more liberals. You don't want a precedent under the current justices saying that it's up to the states to decide -- or worse.

Constitutional scholar Bruce Ackerman once posed the question of whether a federal constitutional amendment could be unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of scholars say, by definition, it can't be. Ackerman asked hypothetically, what would happen if a constitutional amendment was passed creating an established church. According to Ackerman, it would be unconstitutional because it would violate the overall thrust and tradition of constitutional development. In other words, he sees the "constitution" the way the British do -- as something bigger than the piece of paper, and more like a legal tradition.

[ColbertWatcher]

93. "Can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional?" The 18th was. n/t

[HamdenRice]

95. No it wasn't. It was repealed.

Although it's never been tested, the idea that a federal constitutional amendment can't be unconstitutional is the view of the overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars.

[ColbertWatcher]

99. But, isn't that why it was repealed? n/t