Quick Hit: Why Prop 8 Won
Richard Kim at The Nation has a great article up up about why Proposition 8 passed in California - specifically, he battles back against the notion that people of color are responsible for the conservative win.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quick Hit: Why Prop 8 Won .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10322
There's plenty of blame to go around for Prop 8's success, but I disagree that with Kim that Obama's opposition to it was "emphatic". When asked by MTV news if he supported Prop 8, he first stated (unsolicited) his views of marriage as only between a man and a woman, made clear that he does not support gay marriage, and then merely described it as "unecessary." I don't think that exactly changed any minds like he could have if he actually expressed emphatic opposition at any point.
And while no one group is "responsible" for the victory of Prop 8 (even Mormons), black voters do share in the responsibility for its passage.
http://princetonprofs.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-folks-and-passage-of-prop-8.html
Yes, black voters share in the responsibility for its passage, but if you think about it, the majority of people who voted against it were white. Therefore "white voters" share in the responsibility of its passage as well. But people rarely use the idea of "white voters" as a group because generally, unless someone specifically says "black(/hispanic/asian/etc.) voters" most people will assume they are referring to white voters. I'd go on a marked/unmarked diatribe here, but I should really be doing math homework.
I do have to say, though, it is wrong to fracture the Yes on 8 voters into racial categories, then say that the black voters represent some sort of problem with *all* black voters.
True. It seems awfully unfair to me that African Americans are getting scapegoated for the passing of prop 8 without taking into account their percentage of the population rather than just the percentage of their racial group who voted 'yes'. That just ignores the real issue, which is tackling cultural homophobic attitudes.
I thought this article was interesting, but was a little disturbed by the suggestion that the reason 70% of African Americans voted 'yes' isn't because they're homophobic, but because they were hoodwinked by the propaganda of the prop 8 movement. Um... so African Americans are just ignorant? Not diggin that.
I don't think it's necessarily about tarring african-american's as ignorant because they were targetted by yes-on-8 campaigners, I think it's important to remember that politics is inherently manipulative and the campaign run by yes-on-8 was full of lies and sowing seeds of fear about things like parental and church rights etc. As most people have busy lives and don't have time to fact-check and educate themselves on every piece of propaganda that comes their way, particularly on issues that don't directly concern them, I don't think it's disingenuous to say that this voting result in the african-american community was largely or at least partly due to their rigourous targetting by the campaign. As KiKi0716 says below, "the Yes on Prop 8 supporters relied on their supporters ignorance of the laws to win." And the majority of people just aren't as clued in as the people who visit this site.
That's not true, actually. White voters went 52% No (meaning 52% on our side).
I think it is shortsighted to say that we now have a problem with black voters. I don't think anyone's saying that. I think we have a problem with 70% of black voters... Or people of any color who vote for discrimination.
One could also interpret this Kim article as being condescending to people of color. He's basically arguing that it's not the fault of African Americans because they weren't TOLD how to vote better, not because they simply are for the proposition. No matter how much I'm against Prop 8, I think that the fact that it passed is reflective of the conservatism/bigotry of the people of California, not the ignorance of black people.
I don't know if I agree with that. We're always concerned with how issues are presented to the public. A lot of people still trust the media. That doesn't mean they're stupid. And being misinformed by someone else is not the same thing as being ignorant.
thank you for pointing that out. I didn't feel like the article was saying anything other than that more african american voters voted for the measure because they weren't talked to. which I suppose is different than "all african americans are homophobic" but the article still seemed to be pushing the theory that if african americans had stayed home as originally planned, the measure would have failed.
Look, it's just a fact: Of all ethnic groups, African-American voters in California provided the single largest block of yes votes on Prop. 8. They swamped the white no vote, even though six times more whites voted than blacks.
African-Americans voted yes by a margin of 70-30. The only block of voters who exceeded that were white Republicans.
Saying that the the fault for this rests at the feet of white LGBT activists denies the ability of black voters to think for themselves. This is not the fault of the people in the LGBT community who failed to stop it, it is the fault of the people who voted yes. And in this case, black voters were unmatched:
Catch that? Someone who lived through Jim Crow believes it would be moral and legal to prevent gay people from sitting at a lunch counter. This is a noxious attitude that is widely shared by African-Americans across the country. It is not the result of a single anti-rights campaign. It is not the fault of others that they believe it.
Where the fuck are you getting those numbers???
They DON'T add up!
From the exit polls. Of the 10.4 million people who voted on prop 8, 10% were African-American, and they voted yes by a 40% margin. In contrast, 63% of the voters were white, amd they voted no by a 2% margin.
What you're failing to realize is that white people are BAD, so their slight opposition to Prop8 makes them responsible for its passage, while a group that voted for Prop8 about 3:1 is blameless.
Empirical observation would tell us that the demographics that voted for rather than against Prop8 are the ones who caused it to pass, but that's just not how things work here.
“They swamped the white no vote, even though six times more whites voted than blacks.”
Where was this number pulled from?
Please explain to me how this can be mathematically possible using the numbers found here: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_LikelyVotersJTF.pdf
Good luck.
Great link. If you look at county-by-county data, it couldn't possibly be true that the black vote swamped the no vote. The Black Californian population is concentrated in 9 or so counties, with most living in Alameda. Alameda County voted overwhelmingly no. If Blacks in Oakland voting Yes on 8 couldn't swamp the White vote, how could the minuscule number of Blacks in overwhelmingly White counties swamp the White vote?
This is semi-related to a point I made down thread:
Also, according to the exit polls, African-Americans represented 10% of the electorate (or a little over a million votes). There are a little over 2 million Black people in California. When you subtract those who aren't eligible to vote (because of age, because they aren't registered, because they are/were in jail), there would have to be around 90% turnout among Black Californian voters (for them to contribute over a million votes). In comparison, Australia (which has compulsory voting) has a turnout rate of 85%.
There are nearly 5x more blacks in LA county than in Alameda County. A whole 40% of the black population is that one LA county alone. Alameda County has less than 9% of the CA black population. Please check your facts, facts are the easiest things to lookup before posting.
LA/Southern CA is traditionally very conservative. So, large black population, conservative environment, religious backing. It's not a surprise why the black vote for prop 8 was so high.
And I don't know what you mean be "swamp" here. Every vote counts. If there were 1 million whites and only 1 black. And the white were perfectly 50/50 on the vote. That one black person has the deciding vote. Everyone is responsible for how their vote affects the election. White or black when you go into the voting booth, you have to take the responsibility knowing your vote could be the deciding vote. 70% of black voters made their decision to deny gay couples the rights of marriage. If they voted similarly to other groups, closer to 50/50, we most likely wouldn't be having this discussion. It is actually very ironic that the demographic most opposed to prop 8 is actually the white male! White males were the most evenly divided in the democratic primaries and the most pro-gay marriage. The stereotype of the oppressing white male completely falls apart in the face of facts.
And finally, the CA population has a huge non-citizen population, up to 20%. So for everyone that quotes "blacks are only x% of the population" that's true but they're larger than x% of the citizens of the state.
But white males are the patriarchy! They must somehow be responsible for Prop8 passing, even if they voted against it. That mere fact is no match for the Feministing truthiness: virtue is determined by gender and skin color, and virtuous people oppose prop8, so prop8 must have been passed by white males, actual voting behavior be damned.
White men did not vote against it, white women did.
You seem to be right. My mistake, strike "males" and replace it with "people."
It was a state-wide measure, you dolt! The percent of the black population in California is at most 9.9-percent. If you have a problem with that number, take it up with the US Census Bureau, you worthless racist.
And you don’t seem to need any numbers, facts, or stats anyway, do you. I mean your final “argument” relies on a series of “Xs.”. And do you really think that CA has THAT big of a black immigrant population? It’s hard to tell where a racist is coming from, because they can’t seem to keep a steady line of “reasoning” going---no matter how poor said reasoning is in the first place.
Have a nice day, “genius.” Heh, heh.
"The percent of the black population in California is at most 9.9-percent. If you have a problem with that number, take it up with the US Census Bureau, you worthless racist."
Glad you're keeping this conversation civil! Do you dispute that there are 5 times more blacks in LA County than Alameda County?
"And you don’t seem to need any numbers, facts, or stats anyway, do you. I mean your final “argument” relies on a series of “Xs.”."
You say X is 9.9, other people say X is 7, it doesn't matter because the statement I made is true regardless of the value of X. That is how a good argument is made my friend.
"And do you really think that CA has THAT big of a black immigrant population?"
I was saying that there are very FEW non-citizen blacks. So as a percentage of the citizen population of CA, blacks are a higher citizen percentage than their total population percentage.
"Have a nice day, “genius.” Heh, heh."
You too!
By the way about white men voting the most against Prop 8, I was referring to the comparison of the minorities and "oppressed" people. White men are stereotypically the oppressors in society. So in this case, as we all know, the oppressed are now the oppressors. For anyone familiar with the history of feminism and human nature, it's no surprise how this happens.
Every vote counts. A homophobic vote is a homophobic vote regardless of the colors of someone's skin or someone's gender. We're just stating the facts. Your feathers are the ones being ruffled. Nothing I can do about that.
Whites went narrowly against Prop8.
Blacks went hugely, overwhelmingly for Prop8.
Although blacks constituted a smaller share of the electorate, by voting in such a lopsided manner they carried the day for Prop 8.
A huge margin of support among the relatively few black voters meant more net votes for Prop 8 than a small majority of opposition among the more numerous white voters could put out against.
50% of 10 is more than 2% of 60.
Do you understand now? Good luck . . .
I'm talking about gross numbers.
51-percent of 6.5 million is 3.3 million white votes for Prop 8.
70-percent of 1 million is 700,000 black votes for Prop 8.
How can anyone be THAT bad at numbers? Oh, I know, reactionaries can---like you. Jesus fucked-up Christ.
Well, add the meaning of the word reactionary to the endless list of things Kurd55 doesn't know. I'm a pro-gay marriage reactionary who spent the last three months volunteering to turn out the black and immigrant votes to elect a Democratic president who is unashamedly liberal and, you know, black. But Kurd55 says this is reactionary behavior, and Kurd55 is a . . . Someone jump in here.
It's funny that you started your post claiming that 51% of whites had voted for Prop8 (when a majority, which is another word you should probably look up, voted against it) and ended it wailing about mathematical ineptitude.
I am referring to the election results here and the exit polling here.
There were a total of 10,357,002 votes cast on Prop. 8, of which 5,424,916 were yes and 4,932,086 were no.
White voters were 63%, or about 6.5 million. They split 51%-49% against, so the net number of white votes was about 130,000 no. (6.5 million x .02.)
African-American voters were 10%, or about 1 million votes. They split 70%-30% in favor, so the net number of black votes was about 400,000 yes. (1 million x .4.)
Thus, the overwhelming black yes vote swamped the effect of the narrow white no vote, despite the fact that the white percentage of all votes was six times larger than the African-American share.
Where are you getting .02 and 4-percent from???
Using you numbers:
51-percent of 6.5 million is 3.3 million.
70-percent of 1-million is 700,000.
Again, what orifice are you pulling your .02-percent and 4-percent from?
You can’t fit 10 pounds of your shit into a 5-pund bag, dear---you'll just make a big mess and end up stinking up the place if you try.
Unless I'm misreading, she thought it would be IMmoral (read: "discrimination") to prevent LBGT people from sitting at a lunch counter.
And while I'm not faulting the LBGT community (I'm faulting the homophobic community), that doesn't mean they couldn't have done a better job reaching out to convince people that religion and gay marriage can coexist.
that girl, you're completely right. I misread the quote. Jesus.
What the hell? "Someone who lived through Jim Crow believes it would be moral and legal to prevent gay people from sitting at a lunch counter?" Where did you get that?
Reread that article you're quoting: "[Francis] does believe it would be discrimination to shun gay people at a restaurant, for example, or refuse to give them a hotel room."
You're right. I got that part wrong. I still find it infuriating that someone who suffered through de jure discrimination herself has no problem imposing it on gay couples.
No one wants to be the lowest on the totem pole. There's nothing more common than someone who's been humiliated by someone stronger taking it out on someone weaker.
I don't buy it. White Republicans voted yes 82%-18%, and it wasn't because they had been humiliated in the past. I don't believe 70% of all African-Americans voted yes for that reason, either. I think it's because the vast majorities of white Republicans and African-Americans share a common cultural belief about homosexuality.
I didn't say a feeling of helplessness and humiliation was the only reason anyone was ever mean to anyone, I pointed it out as one explanation of why oppressed minority groups are so often vicious in their attacks on eachother.
As for why Republicans are such hateful spiteful people, if you listen to their rhetoric regarding culture they DO see themselves as oppressed and humiliated. I wouldn't ask anyone to listen to Limbaugh, but any speech Sarah Palin gives demonstrates it just as well.
In this case, I think the explanation is that white conservatives and the African-American community generally share a common essentialist belief about sexual orientation, namely that homosexuality is not "normal" or "natural", and so must be bad. This is part of the reason young African-American men who have sex with other men are seeing the highest increase in the rate of HIV infection - forced to be more closeted, they don't get the health information they need and they engage in riskier behavior (i.e., sex with anonymous partners). It's this common cultural belief that Republicans have been trying to exploit, and the Yes on 8 campaign is a successful example.
I'm not arguing with you. What I do disagree with is the assertion someone made that it's somehow unusual for the black community, which has been treated so terribly, to pick on another oppressed minority. It happens all the time. Divide and rule.
Laying the blame for prop 8 at the feet of activists does *not* deny the ability of voters (black or white) to think for themselves, any more than saying that the better lawyer and more organized law firm wins more cases means that judges are unable to think for themselves.
Activists drive politics.
The lion's share of the blame of course lays on the despicable fear-mongering tactics of the conservative blocs.
But LGBT activists should be used to fear-mongering, and should have been ready for it. They were expecting to relax and let peoples' "good natures" take care of everything, naively believing that the Rovian era is dead and can't hurt us anymore. But you know what? They were wrong.
Okay, I think I see how the conversation here can come together. You say rightly that the No on 8 people did a lousy job of selling their effort. And there are subgroups within the Prop. 8 electorate that we could focus a future campaign on. So to synthesize the two points, I think the future effort to overturn Prop. 8 should be looking at how we successfully persuade members of those subgroups. I focus on the African-American community because I think it's self-evident that people who themselves have a history of suffering discrimination shouldn't support discriminating against others. That that wasn't true here baffles and infuriates me. Instead of just remaining furious, I would like to better understand why black voters were so amenable to the anti-rights message and what we can do next time to counter it.
The U.S. Census Bureau of 2000 put the black population of California at around 8-percent.
Do the math, people.
75% of 8 is more than 2% of 47. That's "the math." Among white voters, prop8 lost narrowly. Among black voters, it passed overwhelmingly. Among the entire population, it passed narrowly.
3.3 million is more than 700, 000. And you can stick that 75 and 2 percent back up where you got it from.
You might feel a little disgusted with our side of the racist coin if you hear Concerned Women for America who have a radio piece stating that they are just elated to have so much in common with Black Democrats on social issues.
I wasn't in California, or Arizona or Florida to know what kind of work was being done to fight these props. I know the choice community spent oodles of money and probably hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours to defeat the abortion props.
What it will come down to in promoting marriage equality is educating one person at a time. The one or two times we will reach a voter can't compete with the every Sunday in Church sermons. But we must make a larger, deeper impact. We must stop wasting our energy pointing fingers and figure out what we need to do to get it done. No doubt with this success we will see propositions pop up all over the country next year. We must tell our stories, share our joy and pain with our neighbors and get it done. Because the churches aren't going to do it for us and neither is Barack Obama.
History has consistently shown that oppressed groups have shown disdain (rather than empathy or solidarity) for other oppressed groups. I am confident that, in time, more and more African American and Hispanic voters will gain more respect for LGBTIAQ (hope I included all the letters) people and vote to one day (hopefully soon) legalize same-sex marriage throughout the US. This does not lessen my disgust and disappointment at the fact that such a reactionary measure passed, but I suspect it would have passed by an even larger margin just a decade ago. It should also serve as an unfriendly reminder that we still have much work to do before we can achieve matrimonial equality.
Numbers.
I agree in a way with Kim's premise that the No on 8 campaign may have failed in its outreach to people of color, but I don't think it's an issue of outreach particularly to people of color: I think it's an issue of outreach among the entire left to evangelical Protestants. Just as the left has failed to take back the morality behind abortion rights (e.g., Obama's argument for abortion rights just as he calls the practice always "tragic"), it has failed to take back the morality, and the coded moral language, of gay rights.
I do think that it's worth looking at the numbers of various demographics -- racial, religious, age or otherwise -- to further one's now-failed cause. Failing to do so is just bad activism. Obviously the No people shouldn't just heap blame on black people. Hell, statistics indicate much more permissive attitudes among younger black Californians than old.
When Clinton supporters were vocally disgruntled with Obama's nomination, sure, some people dismissed them with sexist slurs, calling them racist. Obama's campaign itself, however, just reached out to them, reasoned with them and won over the vast majority of them (myself included). It did so not by pretending the demographic polling trend didn't exist but by taking it seriously and wooing them. That's good campaigning, and I think that next time around, the No on 8 folks would do well to remember it with regard to any demographic blocks that conspicuously supported the proposition.
Is it just me, or does the Womanist Musings post have some glaring inaccuracies?
It claims that same sex marriage had been legal in CA for YEARS, and not months, before Prop 8, and it even says that Prop 8 failed!
I find errors of that magnitude distracting.
It's not a "notion" that African-Americans are largely responsible for the passage of Prop 8. It's a statistic.
Yes, lots of other demographics voted yes on 8, but poll analysts are showing that the high African-American turnout was THE deciding factor.
It's not racist, it's just the way it played out in the polling booth! If gun-toting, Bible-bashing conservatives turned out to the polls in RECORD numbers, I'm sure we would point to them as the deciding factor.
I'd be wary of a double standard that voids us of a realistic view of the prevalent attitudes towards homosexuality within communities. If we can't acknowledge that there is heterosexism in oppressed ethnic minorities, how can we ever hope to change something we don't believe exists?
Alan, the way you argue here is indeed a "notion", I would say. You can't point out one factor as THE deciding one, because that's not how voting works, it's a normative statement. Statistics are figures like 70% of African-American voters voting yes, or that African-American voters represented 7 percentage points of the yes side (the accuracy of which is of course debated). That doesn't have a normative aspect (except in choosing which statistics we measure, of course), but to say that something was decisive, then that really is making a judgement call, since every yes-vote counted. Every statement is also equally valid. White Republicans were to blame. If whites had voted to a greater proportion against it, if Mormons hadn't paid for it, if old people hadn't voted, if those ten douchebag hipsters hadn't ironically voted for it, etc. etc. It all adds up, and you can't put one particular demographic as the tip of the iceberg and say that THERE'S the problem without making a normative judgement.
Now, on a campaign level, there are many lessons to be learned from this, naturally, since then we are actually dealing with collectives, and social movements and so on, which we can engage.
I disagree with the notion that the African-American vote was the reason prop.8 won, not only because it's a flawed, simplistic summary, but also because it's counter-productive. Assigning blame usually doesn't work. Who has ever changed their vote because they've been blamed? This is doubly true, I imagine, for a lot of African-Americans, who are used to being "the problem". And it's no doubt doubly heart-breaking for African-American allies.
Blaming political or religious groups probably doesn't help much, either, but in that case you're not shooting yourself in the foot, because if you're part of a group who was pro-Prop.8, then obviously you were pro-Prop.8, so there's not much chance of winning that, anyway.
I love the couple who said they hoped their marriage would be "kept safe" because of Prop 8. Safe from what? The enforced homosexuality that comes with gay marriage? Oh wait, because there are quotas, and if a gay couple gets married, it means you can't.
I find it interesting that we break white people down into groups based on ideals (evangelical Christians, stay-at-home moms, hunters, young college graduates) and don't do the same for black people. We just say "black voters" like all black people think the same way.
This is very important, thank you! The conclusions some people seem to be gleaning from these numbers is that black voters supporting Prop 8 has more to do with the fact that they're black than it does to the fact that they, like Midras' example, are religious. You can get into a whole other historic discussion about people of color, missionaries, Baptism, and oppression; right now I just want to know, "Why are we even talking about how the issue is divided by race, rather than, far more importantly, how the issue is divided by religion?"
Well put.
How did Jews vote on Prop8?
I thought people knew exit polls weren't always reliable.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit.html
If you can't trust exit polls to accurately reflect all Americans, why would you trust exit polls to accurately reflect a very small subset (Blacks are only 6% of California's population)?
Also, according to the exit polls, African-Americans represented 10% of the electorate (or a little over a million votes). There are a little over 2 million Black people in California. When you subtract those who aren't eligible to vote (because of age, because they aren't registered, because they are/were in jail), there would have to be around 90% turnout among Black Californians (for them to contribute over a million votes). In comparison, Australia (which has compulsory voting) has a turnout rate of 85%.
And if homophobia is a result of living in a repressed, ethnic, heterosexist community, what explains the recent bans on gay marriage in Arizona (where 3% of the population is Black), Oregon, North Dakota, etc? And if we're to believe CNN's exit polls (which also, as a point of comaprison, had convicted felon Ted Stevens losing his Senate seat; he's in a highly contested race) are infallible , how do we explain what happened in Arkansas? In Arkansas, 54% of black folks voted to ban gay couples from adopting versus 58% of white voters.
Some links:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/7/34645/1235/704/656272
http://sparkymonster.livejournal.com/291430.html?page=1#comments
I think it's both inaccurate to say that ALL LGBTQ people are blaming black people for prop 8 as well as inaccurate to say that blacks are responsible for prop 8's passing.
I do however, think it's important to understand the attitudes of those people who voted for this bill. Although we expect most Republican's to have voted for prop 8...To many, it was upsetting to realize that in order for this bill to have passed, a portion of the liberal/democratic party would have had to be in favor of it. That includes white voters, black voters, hispanic voters, etc. And to me, that means that the homophobia present right here in the DEMOCRATIC (liberal) party needs to be addressed.
With regard to black voters and the particular statistic that showed 70% in support of this bill. Some articles have already mentioned, that this has a lot to do with religion and the history of the church within the black community. Obama himself addressed homophobia in a speech at an Atlanta Baptist church saying "We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them"...Thus the passage of prop. 8 had more to do with religion than it did with race. For example, many people think that their religion is incompatible with gay rights, but frankly, that's just not true. The two can co-exist, and in fact if jesus were around today, he would have also been in favor of gay rights and equality for all.
So, I don't blame any single group for the passing of this bill...it took a wide variety of support from many different people for this bill to pass, including both democrats and republicans.
Final point, One thing that upsets me about these anti-gay bills, aside that they are used as a wedge issue to divide people, but it's also my opinion that discrimination bills like prop. 8 should never have been allowed to have been put to a vote in the first place. The bill was about discrimination, and the state should never be a sponsor of discrimination. period. For too long the government supported bigoted and discriminatory laws...it's time to put an end to this terrible chapter in our history and STOP IT with the discriminatory laws once and for all! If you think about it, nobody in this country should be allowed to vote on or pass a bill that takes away constitutional rights from other people. I too heard many myths about why this bill passed, but one thing that upset me is that a lot of the mainstream media seemed to blame the gay community itself. Saying that gays were directly responsible for the anti-gay "backlash" because gay rights activists have been too "pushy" with their "agenda"...I read an article that chastised us for having the audacity to expect "regular people" to support our rights. Personally, I don't understand this type of thinking. It shouldn't even be a question of whether or not "regular people" support our rights or not. It says in the constitution that we are all equal. Thus our rights are not "given to us by the voters of California, Arkansas, Florida, or any other state...They are our INALIENABLE rights. In other words, no one can take them away from us. For these reasons and more...I expect that eventually this bill will be found to be unconstitutional.
The people *shouldn't* have been allowed to vote on our rights, which is why there's a solid lawsuit right now challenging it. In order to fundamentally alter the Constitution (which prop 8 does because it invalidates the equal protection clause), you need to hold a Constitutional convention in CA. Ballot initiatives are only legal for smaller, additive changes.
My mother-in-law (we'll see how long that lasts) is a lawyer, and she subscribes to a constitutional law listserv. The general consensus among them is that the legal challenges to Prop 8 are absolutely sound. If Prop 8 is upheld, it will be for purely political reasons.
An article asserting that Obama was "emphatic" in his opposition to Prop 8 is not "great," it's ridiculous. Obama's anti-Prop8 message was both incoherent (I'm against gay marriage AND against outlawing gay marriage?) and delivered in the quietest whisper imaginable.
Obama's done a lot to force the black community and black churches to face up to their virulent homophobia, and that's demonstrated great courage. But on Prop8 this eloquent moral giant turned into a mouse who barely squeaked. I love Obama, I've done nothing but work for him for three months, I cried my eyes out in public when he gave his acceptance speech, but he showed neither leadership nor courage on Prop8.
A couple of things...
1) The black vote WAS the deciding factor in passing 8. If the black vote had been closer to 50-50 like most other groups, 8 would have been soundly defeated. That is a statistical fact, and it's not helpful to argue its validity just because you don't want it to be true. I don't want it to be true either.
2) No one in the GLBT community is saying that 70% of the black vote went against us *because* they were black. I think we are all smart enough to recognize the influence of the churches. No one's saying that black people are inherently homophobic either. What we are saying is the truth: that 70% of black voters in CA are homophobic, and that they tipped the scales against us.
3) The influence of the churches are NOT an excuse. I loathe all people who think it's OK to take away my rights, no matter what the color of their skin and no matter what the reason. I don't hate black people; I hate the black voters who used their religion to slap me in the face, just like I hate the rural white voters and the catholic latino voters and the christian asian voters who did the same. Race doesn't factor into my anger. Not to mention, the idea that black people will just blindly do whatever their church says is insulting to them.
4) That said, it is an especially egregious betrayal that the black community by was the deciding factor in this. We were on the same side with Obama - we both believed that he was the change this country needed and the change we worked together to realize. Obama was the reason that black voters turned out in such record numbers. It is therefore a cold irony that these were the people that overwhelmingly tipped the scales against us. It breaks my heart. It makes me feel betrayed by Obama as well, that he would say that he doesn't believe I have the right to marry, regardless of any lip service he paid us, and that he may very well have had a large part in 8 passing, even if it was unintentional. My heart is just... broken over this. There is no better way to describe it.
5) While we are understandably upset about all of this, notice that it is not the black voters we are marching against. We are rallying around the Mormon Temple, we have anti-Mormon signs, anti-theocracy signs, not anti-black signs. We are blocking traffic for everyone; we are trying to get our voices heard by everyone. We feel hurt and betrayed by the black community, but that doesn't make us racists. Give us some credit here.
6) I find it insulting to suggest that we are to blame for our own defeat. The other side was infinitely more funded than we were and fought incredibly dirty. The Mormon Church alone contributed more to the Yes on 8 campaign than we were able to raise TOTAL. I busted my ass almost every day for the past 3 months phone banking and recruiting volunteers and gathering donations - we just couldn't keep up.
There has been such a focus on the fact that the black vote was the deciding factor because of the grand irony of it, on several levels. But from what I have seen, the majority of our wrath is being leveled at the Mormon Church, not them.
1) It is NOT a statistical fact. Last time I checked, no one's idenity is on any particular ballot.
2) 70% of the Black voters THAT WERE POLLED are homophobic. There is nothing that says that 70% of ALL Black voters in CA are homophobic.
3) You contradict yourself here:
4) You seem to forget that THERE ARE BLACK PEOPLE WHO ARE LGBT AS WELL! Do NOT talk about "The Black Community" and "The LGBT Community" as if they are mutually exclusive.
That's exactly why I prefer to call myself a womanist instead of a feminist.
2) There is a margin of error within polls, but to disregard the polls is sheer lunacy. The evidence is clear: There is a homophobic tilt within the black community.
1 and 2) i refer you to qwerty.
3) ok, what would you like me to say? black people are born homophobic or black people are sheep? i don't think either of these are true.
4) i never said they were mutually exclusive. you can belong to both communities, but that doesn't mean that those communities don't exist. that's silly.
5) wtf?
This is absolutely an excellent comment. I also blogged about this recently, see
http://tinyurl.com/6xp83p
and was called a racist by many people for calling out the black community. We do not need to turn a blind eye to the huge amount of homophobia in the black community. Homophobia, of course, exists in all communities, but is exaggerated in the black community. Why is that? I can't write a scholarly essay explaining that right now, but I don't think the appropriate response is to IGNORE it or make excuses for it. Many activists within the black community, like Al Sharpton, have long recognized the severity of homophobia within that community. Many black LGBT members also talk about how much harder it is to come out in their community, as opposed to the white community.
It is NOT okay for any person, regardless of race, to oppress individual rights. Artdyke is justifiably angry and the furious rush to the defense of the 75% of black voters is fucking ridiculous. Should we also be defending the 48% of white voters who voted yes? I don't think so. Why are we trying to hush this whole thing up. I think we should use it to turn a light on the seedy underbelly of the black Christian community because the homophobia is out of control. We need to push them to protect all individual rights, not just their own.
Also, I agree that blaming the LGBT community for somehow not reaching out enough to minorities is fucking retarded. I volunteer for an LGBT organization. They didn't come to my door and recruit me. I sought them out because I am aware and want to help.
Finally, all of this argument that the advertisements beguiled the black community is insulting to their intelligence and frankly naive. Black voters have access to the information and the burden is upon them to educate themselves. Also, their voting record is in complete accordance with what has been consistently observed by people within that community. There is no reason to believe that their overwhelming vote for Yes is some kind of deviation form the norm in their idealogy.
Oh- and you should be mad at Obama- his silence on this issue in the days before the election helped to take your rights away.
I think the point about the advertising & the organizing is valid. The Yes on 8 ads, while dishonest, were well done in terms of driving their message. The No on 8 ads were infrequent and very mild. They didn't make a strong statement disputing the lies of their opponents. In my experience in SoCal there was a lot of preaching to the choir - liberal folks talking amongst themselves rather than giving those arguments to the proposition's supporters. I'm a grad student at a UC in Orange County(south of Los Angeles). In all of my classes this week, the passing of this prop was all anyone wanted to talk about. The students are PISSED about it. I'm kind of thrilled to see people taking to the streets in LA. But we really need some organized plan of action. I keep checking back with the official No on 8 group, but still no news. There are a lot of students forming facebook groups. I hope we can find a way to harness the passion of the group...
I agree that the ads sucked in the beginning. by the time they got good, it was a little late. But again, you can't blame them for being infrequent. We just could not compete financially.
There are dozens of protests everywhere. Ours in LA seem to be the most disruptive and newsworthy...
Here's a site listing all the protests going on:
http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/11/listing-of-prop-8-protests-and-rallies.html
I actually think the *last* thing we need is to be more organized. I am super jazzed by the self-organizing that happens on the spot. If there is a leader, then there is someone to blame for blocking traffic and mobbing the streets, etc. Organization would inevitably make the protests much tamer. We need the opposite. Our only objective here is to show people that they simply can't do this to us. There is literally nothing else we can do - it's all in the courts' hands now. We have to just stay loud and angry. As my favorite sign says, No More Mr. Nice Gay.
Thanks for the link! I just might join the Costa Mesa group tonight. I see your point about organizers. Again, I'm so happy that people are being loud about it.
How is it not racist that 200,000 some-odd voters now deflects blame onto the whole black community? Yeah, that's your statistical "fact" for you. That's about the number of black voters that supposedly pushed 8 over the edge.
Furthermore people are missing the point about the role of the black church. It's not just about THE RELIGION.
It's about the role that the black church plays in communities to fill a very broad social void. Is that mirrored in other communities on the same scale in America?
And in case you missed it in the US, a similar dynamic is happening in Muslim communities in Europe. Back home, look at how much social change was pushed through in our country by black people with the title of Reverend? Historically, black leaders have been church leaders.
I'm not denying that there is homophobia in the black community that needs to be addressed...and if you want to be hurt and betrayed by 200,000 people, be my guest. But you better damn well know what you are talking about before you start lumping everybody together on this one.
I made a comment in the other Prop 8 thread today, but it looks like the party is in here.
The blame for Prop 8's passing falls squarely on homobigots, PARTICULARLY the groups that blatantly LIED in their ads and outreach. They know they can't get substantial support for their positions based on plain ol' facts, but hetero supremacy is very important to them so they were willing to do what it took.
What shocks me is how few people seem to be able to distinguish between civil marriage and church ceremonies. I also can't believe this proposition was allowed to be put on the ballot in the first place. I guess with enough signatures, anyone could get their cockamamey idea up for a vote, huh? Maybe Californians against Prop 8 should flood the state with props forbidding Mormons to marry; how 'bout that.
Speaking of Mormons, I bet they are all quaking in their boots as hoardes of angry gays and lesbians storm their property; it's like their worst nightmare!
Mormons' freedom to marry as they wished has been interfered with and outlawed plenty.
@aleks: You mean those fundamental sexist morman men who beat their wives and rape underage girls? Sorry but I don't think you can compare the right to same-sex marriage to the fundamental morman institution of polygamy...I know there are plenty of people in loving poly amorous relationships and that's fine because it is their choice, but in general the fundie morman "right to polygamous marriage" has done more harm to women and young girls than anything else. It hasn't been used so that people can enter freely into a poly amorous relationship if they choose, it has been used to FORCE underage girls into a life of sexual abuse, violence and neglect. It's not about "morman's freedom to marry as they wish" because more often than not women and young girls are forced/coerced into these relationships, it is not out of their own freewill.
The persecution of the Mormons in the 19th century was due not to polygamy or religious bigotry but to their failure to respect women? Really? THAT'S why they were attacked by (unfundamentalist and non-sexist?) mobs and (feminist?) politicians and driven out of Missouri and Illinois? I think you're giving the rest of the country much too much credit if you think respect for women was the cause of all that.
I'm not talking about morman persecution in the 19th century. YOU were the one that brought up that mormans are not free to marry as they like in this country. And I replied with the truth about Morman marriage and why states don't agree with it...because it's devastating, abusive and unfair to women and young girls. The morman church doesn't need any defending here. They were the one that bankrolled this bigoted H8 bill. This has nothing to do with any 19th century persecution-you're bringing that up out of the blue as if it has some relevancy to gay marriage. None of your points make any sense. The reasons that most states don't agree with the morman institution of marriage IN THIS CENTURY is because it's inherently degrading to women, coercive, and abusive...not to mention most states have laws against marrying and raping little girls. Uck, the idea that you would even bring up the morman institution of marriage and make a comparison to gay marriage is just disgusting. The prior invokes thoughts of violence, abuse, coercion and statutory rape, the latter [gay marriage] is about the right of two people who love each other to enter into a legal agreement out of their own free will like every other citizen in this country. The two are NOT comparable AT ALL...and frankly you sound like you're just bringing it up to try and play some sort of "oppression olympics" game...so I'm just going to stop engaging on this entire derailing argument of yours.
Learn to read, then go read some books, then come back and actually read what I said. I never began to compare Mormon anything to gay marriage. SarahMC advocated banning Morman marriage and I said it had already been done. You're welcome if this bland and accurate statement provided an excuse for an ignorant hissy fit you've been meaning to throw. I'm entirely, 100% for gay marriage, I gave money to the No on Prop 8 campaign and urged everyone I know in Cali to vote against it, and I've roundly criticized Obama, one of my favorite people in the universe, for not taking anything but the weakest and most timid stance against it. All this nonsense you're making up and attributing to me is bunk. Go ask for a refund for your education to date, and use that money to enroll in remedial logic and reading comprehension classes.
Woah Aleks, I agree with your points but that was a PERSONAL ATTACK. If I'm correct in my observations you have been on this board long enough to understand how things can get misinterpreted in the internet. Fair enough to call someone out if they misunderstand you, but...
"Go ask for a refund for your education to date, and use that money to enroll in remedial logic and reading comprehension classes." - un-fucking-necessary.
"meeneecat replied to aleks :
I'm not talking about morman persecution in the 19th century. YOU were the one that brought up that mormans are not free to marry as they like in this country. And I replied with the truth about Morman marriage and why states don't agree with it...because it's devastating, abusive and unfair to women and young girls. The morman church doesn't need any defending here. They were the one that bankrolled this bigoted H8 bill. This has nothing to do with any 19th century persecution-you're bringing that up out of the blue as if it has some relevancy to gay marriage. None of your points make any sense. The reasons that most states don't agree with the morman institution of marriage IN THIS CENTURY is because it's inherently degrading to women, coercive, and abusive...not to mention most states have laws against marrying and raping little girls. Uck, the idea that you would even bring up the morman institution of marriage and make a comparison to gay marriage is just disgusting. The prior invokes thoughts of violence, abuse, coercion and statutory rape, the latter [gay marriage] is about the right of two people who love each other to enter into a legal agreement out of their own free will like every other citizen in this country. The two are NOT comparable AT ALL...and frankly you sound like you're just bringing it up to try and play some sort of "oppression olympics" game...so I'm just going to stop engaging on this entire derailing argument of yours."
Good point. Can't we all just get along?
It seems unlikely.
" kurd55 replied to billdiamond :
It was a state-wide measure, you dolt! The percent of the black population in California is at most 9.9-percent. If you have a problem with that number, take it up with the US Census Bureau, you worthless racist.
And you don’t seem to need any numbers, facts, or stats anyway, do you. I mean your final “argument” relies on a series of “Xs.”. And do you really think that CA has THAT big of a black immigrant population? It’s hard to tell where a racist is coming from, because they can’t seem to keep a steady line of “reasoning” going---no matter how poor said reasoning is in the first place.
Have a nice day, “genius.” Heh, heh."
Reading through these comments I have to agree and disagree with many of the arguments stated. Rather than go through them one by one Ill just state my opinion and the reasonings for it.
First off, I am an African American. I am also gay and I am a San Diegan.
The results of the election surprised me because #1 Being a California native, my state has always been a safe haven for LGBT Americans and now, sadly, it is not. And that breaks my heart. #2 That the people can override a Supreme Court decision with a simple majority 52.4% to 47.6%. #3 That we voted on this AT ALL. What we should know by now looking through our country's history, the majority will NEVER protect the minority. And that people should NEVER vote on civil rights issues because they will ALWAYS get it wrong. There are prime examples of that.
What did not surprise me was that African Americans overwhelming supported Prop 8. I had hoped by some miracle that they wouldn't but I know why they did. Unlike many posters here, I will put some blame at their feet. Its not pointing fingers and it is not losing sight of the real issue. Its TOUGH LOVE.
When, as a minority group, you feel the right to oppress others when you yourself are oppressed is disgraceful and counterproductive to the fight for the freedom of all people.
This issue should be a no-brainer for us but it is not. Why? Because unfortunately the black community has internalized much of the same ideologies that have contributed to their own oppression.
This is a sad realization for me to make as an African American who has been told my entire life to treat people how they want to be treated and that freedom is to be awarded to everyone regardless of who they are. It really saddens me, but again, I am not surprised. Disappointed but not surprised.
Yes, homophobia is widely to blame regardless of what people hold those beliefs but when the people who do hold those beliefs are the ones that have been fighting for equality, it needs to be addressed. We need to call out hypocrisy for the sake of everyone even those who have chosen to discriminate because many are ignorant to the fact that it is wrong.
My favorite writer and activist, Audre Lorde once said that "Your silence will not protect you." If we are silent on this everyone gets hurt especially LGBT people of color who have to deal with both worlds.
I hope that all made sense. Its what I believe and I live it. I cannot apologize for it.
~Ashley~
Being a hispanic NYer I've heard a lot of scapegoating Black and Latinos for this. And it irks me. Get out there in the communities and make alliances and your case. I have to say I haven't seen these hurt-feelings folks embracing us to the point they have a right to feel "betrayed". Most folks I know don't care about gay marriage but would vote their religious conviction on first blush. But its not a hard and fast position. But yelling and lecturing will get you no where.
...and here is another thing. The "homophobic" rants and arguments will not work. You're not going to overturn religious tradition on this, you have to take it out of the religious realm. You have to approach people on rights under the constitution being equal for everybody. That their rights shouldn't be abridged because some disapprove.
"You're not going to overturn religious tradition on this, you have to take it out of the religious realm. You're not going to overturn religious tradition on this, you have to take it out of the religious realm."
I don't agree with you that we have to take the "gay issue" out of the religious "realm". The problem with this is, so many people see their religion and gay rights as incompatible. But by taking gay issues out of the "religious realm" you are basically only confirming this. However, the idea that religion and gay rights are incompatible is just wrong, it's not true. Traditional values of compassion, community, family, and love are not "anti-gay", in fact they have the potential to be very pro-gay. There are many churches that stand up for gay rights already, granted the opposition has been more vocal, but it's precisely the reason why we need to have more religious leaders speaking up for gay rights and equality as well as more gay leaders speaking towards religious values as they relate to gay rights. If we let the right/homophobic/bigoted perspective define religion's stance on gay issues, than we are letting go a great opportunity to define the debate ourselves and reach out to a wider audience. We should be including certain traditional religious values such as love, compassion and equality in our arguments. I hate how everyone thinks that religion is automatically anti-gay. The truth is, it's not, the only reason this has become the prevalent thought is because for too long, the right wing hate machine has defined the issue of religion and what is important to religious Americans. Well I don't think that the right speaks for even the majority of religious Americans right now, and I think it's the perfect opportunity to engage in this type of strategy.
Also, about the "homophobic rants" comment...I'm not quite sure what you mean by that exactly, but given the context of your comment, I take it you mean the accusations that Yes on prop. 8 voters are homophobic and that this should be toned down. Again I could be wrong in my interpretation, but if that is indeed what you are saying, I think it's entirely wrong. The reason why people vote against gay rights is because they are afraid of gay people, they are "afraid their kids will have to learn about it" "they are afraid their church will have to marry gays" "they are afraid that gays will start sueing for their rights" "they are afraid that gay couples will "degrade" the institution of marriage"...It's all about fear...and frankly, that's blatant homophobia (homo=gay, phobia=fear)...Just like we wouldn't hesitate to call out sexism, or racism, or ablism, or classism...Why is it any different with homophobia? It just doesn't make any sense to me. Equality isn't won by "being nice" about other people's bigotry towards you. Equality is not won by giving people who stomp on your rights a "free pass". Equality certainly won't be won if we're too afraid to confront the REASONS as to why more than 50% of the people in certain states voted to take away our rights.
She didn't say that anyone needed a free pass, she said that people need to be engaged in productive ways and that confrontation should have an actual purpose rather than just picking fights as you seem to spend your life doing.
I would agree only if the truth had won out in the fight against Prop 8. Lies and deception did. The Yes on Prop 8 supporters relied on their supporters ignorance of the laws to win.
Civil rights movements have always stressed a moral ground. The gay rights movement is no different. Malcolm X even said that "The truth is always on the side of the oppressed." Right now we are the oppressed and we know that we're right in every sense of the word. Being nice and polite has gotten us nowhere. We need to get in people's faces and challenge their long held beliefs. Civil rights movement did it for racism, women's rights did it for sexism, now its our turn for homophobia.
Remember that religious convictions have always been used on both sides of these issues. We need to keep that in mind when we argue that challenging beliefs will get us nowhere because that simply is not true.
I see what you are saying Kiki and its not that I think people should be nice I just believe they can win on the merits of their case if they chose to engage in community activism. Of course that would mean they would have to actually engage gays of color first and deal with their own house.
Meeneecat I could not disagree with you more. People did not vote against this because they "hate or fear" gay people. Their familia are gay people. Their friend are gay people. They may be misinformed by some things within the law and have concerns and what needs be done is talk to people. Tell them 'no, your pastor will not go to jail for refusing to conduct a gay marriage'. Tell them what marriage brings under the law civil unions do not. Yelling "homophobia" may feel good but all it does is say 'I'm righteous and you're wrong and evil', but that doesn't get you anywhere.
And I say take it out of religion because people can agree that whther they approve of a person'e lidestyle or not they can agree the US constitution covers all.
When people use reasons like "I don't want my kids to learn about gay people" "I don't want my church to have to marry gay people" "I don't want gay people suing for their right to marry"...and on and on...In other words I haven't heard a "pro-gay" reason to support prop 8. All the reasons that I have heard, whether they be lies of distortions they are all still very anti-gay...and they all demonstrate a level of fear of gay people. I'm sure some people were confused by the opposition, but I think it's insulting to just assume that the majority were confused and didn't know what they were doing.
Not calling out homophobia, or trying to silence critiques of homophobia, when it's present is as ridiculous as telling people not to call out sexism, or racism, or classism, etc. simply because people might be "offended". I'm not even talking about the black vote vs. the white vote here, I'm talking about everyone who voted for this, fear of gay people was a driving factor and the opposition played on this fear in order to get turnout for their side.
Again there are many parallels to prop. 8 and the push to ban interracial marriage 40 years ago, and just like racism was the motivator behind a ban on interracial marriage, homophobia is the motivating force behind prop 8. Both demonstrate hate towards a minority group. Thus, I don't think being silent on instances of homophobia is going to get us anywhere. Equality wasn't won by any group by being "nice" and "considerate" of their oppressors. It just doesn't work that way.
I guess we can just agree to disagree then, huh?
I agree that many of the people who voted for prop 8 didn't see themselves as 'full of hate', they were just looking out for their kids ("I dont want my kids to get taught about gays" etc.) If you take a look at the 'yes on 8' vids on youtube, a lot of them are very calm and 'rational', and emphasise their point that just because you support prop 8 doesn't mean you are prejudiced. Now, of course, "I don't want my kids hearing that" IS extremely heterosexist, but as someone whose parents probably think that, or used to, I can see where they're coming from. If we yell "hate and prejudice" at them they're not going to identify with that at all - a lot of the commenters were saying things like "I'm sick of people assuming that just cos I support the proposition". Unfortunately I think we need to take a much softer approach in educating people about heterosexism, because a lot of folks don't recognise their views as homophobic and yelling 'homophobe!' is not gonna make them listen. It's like when I came out to my mum about 9 months ago, she was very accepting but in follow-up conversations there were some things she just didn't *get*, and when I tried to explain them to her she could get quite touchy if I didn't get the balance right. There were a few times when I lost the bap because of something she said, then she would get upset and be like 'you're insinuating that I'm prejudiced!' (and I'm secretly thinking, 'you are!' but I can't say that cos she won't get why). Sorry for the rambling post, but basically what I'm trying to say is that 8=hate might have been a bad PR move and that if we want the people who voted yes to come over to our side we need to find common ground and reach across to explain to them in a language they can understand rather than being like "you're either with us or against us". I know it sucks that we even have to explain it, but judging by the results we obviously do.
Another thing I would hardly trust exit polls on a matter like this, I'm betting a whole lot of people lied about how they voted.
I don't know about that . . . unlike with racism, I don't know of many people who are ashamed to be anti-Gay Marriage. It's a perfectly respected, majority position.
Alek I tend to think its less socially acceptable in California but I could be wrong.
I could be wrong too. In my non-California experience, people who are opposed to gay marriage (most people) don't see that as anything to be ashamed of, the way people sometimes feel ashamed of their racial prejudices. Even then, the supposed "Bradley effect" doesn't seem to have a lot of evidence for it - people who didn't vote for the black guy but didn't want to admit it was because he was black don't seem to have told pollsters they were going to vote for the black guy, although maybe they told pollsters they were going to vote for the white guy but gave other non-racial reasons. This is purely speculation, but I see very little reason to believe that people lie about how they're going to vote, although they may lie or self-deceive about WHY they'll vote that way. If I'm against gay marriage because the idea of happy gay couples makes me sick, and I recognize that that's a socially unacceptable response, am I going to tell the pollster that I will vote FOR gay marriage? Or will I say I'll vote against it, but because of traditional blah blah and children whatever?
Aleks, do not misrepresent what I said. I did not advocate Mormon marriage; I made a sarcastic remark to illustrate the unfairness and bias involved in discriminating against ANY group.
SarahMC,
You said "Maybe Californians against Prop 8 should flood the state with props forbidding Mormons to marry; how 'bout that."
I said "Mormons' freedom to marry as they wished has been interfered with and outlawed plenty."
How am I misrepresenting anything you said? You made what I'm sure seemed like a witty and meaningful point. I made a factual historical observation.
Aleks, do not misrepresent what I said. I did not advocate banning Mormon marriage; I made a sarcastic remark to illustrate the unfairness and bias involved in discriminating against ANY group.
Aleks, you are deliberately distorting what I have said and what SarahMC said, NEITHER of us are advocating discrimination or persecution of any group. I'm only pointing out the reason that mormans get arrested for their marriages is because most states have laws against marrying and raping young girls. I don't think Warren Jeffs is being persecuted, I think he was arrested because he was a rapist. The law is very clear on this. The personal attacks and the distortion need to stop.
I suppose if I'd given you reason to think I was somehow referring to rape or comparing it to gay marriage, AND if I hadn't already corrected you, that would make some sense. You're a fine one to complain about personal attacks and distortion.
Remember that decade long debate about how the (predominantly black) Rap culture is hypermasculine and therefore mysogynistic and therefore virulently homophobic? Remember all those elegant rebuttles about female rappers using the culture as a source of empowerment and gender slurs being used a standard of straight masculinity, not having to do with actual sexual orientation and actual oppression of a minority by a minority?
I guess they were wrong.
How dare I say anything against white, mainstream feminism!
What-the-fuck-ever. Disgrasian spells out nice and clear for people who still don't get it:
~Malaika924
aleks, Since you seem to be missing something...here's how I draw my conclusion, I'll spell it out for you. You make a comment about how Mormans have not been allowed to marry freely, (clearly you brought this up in reference to gay marriage, since that IS what we are talking about here) Now, most people would logically assume you are referring to the Mormon practice of polygamous marriage, which is not allowed in most states. However, given that within fundamental Morman churches, many young girls are often married off against their will (or through coercion) and forced to have sex in a way that violates statutory rape laws in most states, it is certainly understandable why most states would not want to allow this sort of institution. In otherwords, because it is an institution that allows for the rape, incest, and abuse of women and young girls (I believe that most feminists here would agree that polygamy is generally anti-woman)
And again, just so you don't twist my words, I'm not talking about ALL mormans here, since many Morman DON'T support this polygamy and abuse against women...But I am talking about the fundamentalist church, and the Morman institution of polygamy within these churches, which is, to put it plainly, built on misogyny.
You say that Mormans are not allowed to marry freely how they like (and again this is how you make your comparison to gay marriage)...But again, and I'll spell it out for you, most women in these polygamous relationships are not marrying of their own "free will", as you claim they are, they are marrying because they are being forced and coerced often with violence into these polygamous marriages.
These ideas that I put forth are not crazy or irrational. I assume them all from your comment on how Mormons are not allowed to marry freely QUOTE:
"Mormons' freedom to marry as they wished has been interfered with and outlawed plenty."
So don't try and deflect my comments by saying I am misusing your words, I am quoting you directly here. And my deductions based on your comment are NOT illogical, and this statement of yours IS a comparison to the banning of gay marriage since that IS the topic we are discussing here.
The idea that my comments would illicit such a knee-jerk, rude and personal attack from you, just demonstrates either the fact that you did not actually read what I wrote or you did not bother to understand where I was coming from.
meeneecat said:
aleks, Since you seem to be missing something...here's how I draw my conclusion, I'll spell it out for you. You make a comment about how Mormans have not been allowed to marry freely, (clearly you brought this up in reference to gay marriage, since that IS what we are talking about here)*****************
No, little troll, as was obvious from the start AND as I've already explained to you in terms so simple I'd feel guilty for patronizing a child like that, it was in response to the statement it was a reply to.
SarahMC said "Maybe Californians against Prop 8 should flood the state with props forbidding Mormons to marry; how 'bout that."
I said "Mormons' freedom to marry as they wished has been interfered with and outlawed plenty."
How could this possibly be put any simpler for you?
Aleks sorry, YOU are the "little" troll, among other things that are "little" about you. I've been registered and participated on this site plenty longer than you have, and I don't need my legitimacy here brought into question out of some hot-headed reactionary male. You want to defend Mormons "right to marry" here? Because you clearly did by your over the top reactionary comments. Go ahead, be my guest, I'll let you dig your own grave. Just don't try to go twisting what you said, now because you want to try and deny it. I said it before and you repeated it here. Lets see here, your words:
SarahMC said "Maybe Californians against Prop 8 should flood the state with props forbidding Mormons to marry; how 'bout that."
Yup, a satiric remark basically saying Gee, how would Mormons like it if Californians funded efforts to get Mormon's right to marry repealed in Nevada, exactly what they had done to gay Californians.
YOU said "Mormons' freedom to marry as they wished has been interfered with and outlawed plenty."
Umm, yup, the same Quote I used in my comment, wait did you see that? I QUOTED you!? How on earth could I be misinterpreting your words by QUOTING you. That's clearly a comment that comes to the defense of Mormon's "freedom to marry" as you called it. You want to try and twist this into something that I "apparently" don't understand?!
Riiiight. So, now that makes me the "troll". Because I point out how you defended Mormon's polygamous anti-woman marriage practices, as their "freedom to marry"...which by the way I already pointed is an oxymoron to begin with, but that seemed to go right over your head.
Got anything else to add while you're spittling at the mouth, there?
I think it's YOU that needs to go trolling somewhere else, will ya, perhaps the MRA or "Yes on 8" sites are more your speed, since you are such the defender of Mormon's "freedom to marry". While your at it maybe you can go donate some money to extending Mormon polygamy rights to other states since you are so concerned about their "freedom to marry". Wait a minute, what's that you said again, since I was so "confused" by it...Oh yea, let me QUOTE you again:
"Mormons' freedom to marry as they wished has been interfered with and outlawed plenty." (as stated by Aleks, this site's only defender of Mormon's marriage rights, aka their "freedom to marry".)