On Blacks and Proposition 8
To review: According to exit polls, black voters in California supported Proposition 8 by an estimated 70%-30% margin. For female black voters, the estimate was 74% in favor of Prop 8.
Many liberal elements in the gay-friendly activist community are resisting efforts to call out blacks who voted for anti-gay bigotry. One example from the far-left People for the American Way:
But responding to that hurt by lashing out at African Americans is deeply wrong and offensive — not to mention destructive to the goal of advancing equality.
…
Angrily blaming African Americans for the passage of Prop 8 is not going to help open doors for the kind of long-term conversations we need to have about homophobia and discrimination. It will, instead, further isolate and undermine courageous African American leaders who have taken a firm stand for equality.
…
Broad-brush denunciation of African Americans by white gay leaders also fosters the incredibly damaging perception that the LGBT and African American communities are two separate, rather than overlapping entities, and undermines the work of African American LGBT leaders.
The Human Rights Campaign cites favorably to this memo.
Others have noted that, at approximately 7% of votes cast, the “black vote” was not a decisive but-for cause of the final outcome (i.e., if blacks had voted 52-48, or even 50-50, then Prop 8 would still have passed).
Such observations completely miss the point, however. Champions of logic are always quick to note that “correlation does not imply causation.” Fine, but this is more an example of the contrapositive notion: lack of causation does not prove lack of correlation — or lack of relevance of such correlation.
The point isn’t whether black anti-gay bigots “caused” the passage of Prop 8. The point is how on earth there can even be such a thing as a “black anti-gay bigot” in the first place?
Grumblings about how “the civil rights struggle was different,” or about how “gays can hide their sexual orientation but blacks can’t hide the color of skin” are not only off-target but are also downright offensive. If a victim of past (or current) discrimination can discern how their struggle was and is different, then they can also be expected to discern how our struggle is the same: that some things simply should not be put to a vote, that “majority rule” is a cruel, sadistic euphemism for “oppressing minorities,” that the opponents to progress often, indeed usually, lie and fear-monger, etc. Our similarities overwhelm our differences, and we are entitled to denounce those who refuse to acknowledge that.
Speaking of correlation versus causation:
We don’t hear people say, “Blacks tend to be deeply religious. Religious people don’t do as well as non-religious people in some industries.” Or, “Blacks tend to grow up poor. It’s harder for poor people to rise to the top.” Again, the answer is this: It’s the person’s blackness that is causing him grief. Whites see that blackness and discriminate.
…
But when blacks vote overwhelmingly in favor of discrimination, suddenly we’re not allowed to look at race. It’s not that blacks qua blackness are bigoted or homophobic. Oh, no. It’s that they are religious. Their religion is the cause of their discrimination.
I would say essentially the same thing, but in slightly different packaging: It doesn’t matter why a black bigot is a bigot. It doesn’t matter why any bigot is a bigot. All that matters is that he is a bigot, and deserves to be denounced for it.
Those bigots who want to enter into a dialog — such as, “Is your struggle really the same as our struggle?” or “How does your biblical argument relate to my biblical argument?” or “What evidence can you provide that my preconception of you is wrong?” — are always free to do so, just as any inquiring mind should approach any debate. But to merely “explain away the bigotry” is tantamount to treating it as, ironically, an immutable trait little different from race, gender or sexual orientation.
Furthermore, to grant a special respect to the excuse — “Well yes, the civil rights era was different…” — will only perpetuate the excuse.
To be blunt, trying to win a debate — even when couched in warm-fuzzy-feeling terms such as “trying to win hearts and minds” — consists, in the end, of telling people they’re wrong. You can be subtle about it, or you can be blunt. But you can’t win a debate by telling the other side that they’re right, or that “being right” is no different from “having an excuse for being wrong.”
More thoughts at Box Turtle Bulletin, while Republic of T. contributes a black gay perspective.
Filed under: Gay Rights and Issues, Society, Religion, Culture Wars
Some good ideas here on how to parse things, but I think the motivation for people within the queer communities in trying to distract for who did the voting is because of the result from some quarters: anti-black bigotry at Prop 8 protests.
This reminds me of Ralph Nader voters in Florida, who could be argued tipped the scales for Bush. I know many lefty Democrats who blame Nader for 8 years of Bush.
They conveniently forget that the number of Dems who voted for Bush vastly outnumbered the Demos who voted for Nader.
No one blamed the Dems as a party or Gore as a candidate for not swaying the swing voters who swung away. Instead they attacked Nader and his supporters for "losing" the victory for Gore.
I see a similar thing here. Why not focus on the whites who voted for Prop 8? Or the Latinos? We as a nation don't really need target practice at small groups. We're experts already.
I cannot fight that which I cannot call by name. I cannot effectively oppose that which I am not allowed to publicly address.
[...] Esquire has been posting a lot about this, and his latest is characteristic for not pulling any punches. But also fascinating is Republic of T, in a [...]
"Many liberal elements in the gay-friendly activist community are resisting efforts to call out blacks who voted for anti-gay bigotry"
Nonsense. I don't see many liberals saying that antigay African Americans (antigay pastors in particular) should not be called out and held accountable.
I do see organizations saying:
1) don't blame all African Americans for the bigotry of some,
2) don't pretend that the 60+ percent of Catholics, Mormons, and elderly who voted for Prop 8 in huge numbers are somehow less responsible or deserving of blame,
3) do hold antigay activists and voters accountable, regardless of their race, religion or whatever,
4) recognize and support the blacks who opposed Prop 8, and
5) why did the No on 8 leadership provide little or no outreach to moderate black, Latino, and rural constituencies who could easily have been swayed to vote No?
If someone really wishes to help promote tolerance and affirmation among African Americans, then instead of smearing them as a group, I suggest extending some support to local black gay churches or to groups such as the National Black Justice Coalition.
11 10 08
Grumblings about how “the civil rights struggle was different,” or about how “gays can hide their sexual orientation but blacks can’t hide the color of skin” are not only off-target but are also downright offensive
I don't know why you are offended. Nor do I see why you are focusing on Black people as one of your commenters above has pointed out that other groups overwhelmingly supported the passage of that Bill. As I said, a gay person can 'hide' their orientation (they should not be asked to do so, but it is true) a Black person cannot. This is not meant to be offensive, it is simply the truth. Now this doesn't mean that gays aren't victims of prejudice. And ultimately the government should get out of the marriage business anyway. But you are still equating apples with oranges. This is from a Black California female who voted AGAINST prop 8.
A lot of Blacks are also offended because historically they cannot point to any coalition between gays and straights during slavery etc. And the Dredd Scott case said that a white person didn't have to respect a Black person. Therefore a white gay person always had a greater standing before the law than any Black.
The other issue is that we put the denial of a civil right to a minority population to the ballot box. You should be inherently offended by that. I don't think it is a good idea to let public opinion dictate matters of law and the fact that the CA Constitution can be amended by a ballot initiative is scary to me. This is because it leads to the tyranny of the masses.
If you are going to rail on Blacks and Mormons for supporting this bill, you are going to have to rail on every other ethnic group and every other religion because the people have spoken. And I don't even agree with their decision.
Mahndisa,
I'm calling BS on a few things.
1. The "hide" argument. Why is this cited ad nauseum? Yes, it is "true" to the extent that we ignore stereotypical behavioral characteristics. I find this argument so noxious and off putting (tell that to European Jewry before emancipation, btw; they could surely "pass") that it is hardly worthy of comment in any normative sense. Why bring it up constantly? It is a normative appeal: my stuggle was worse than your struggle, etc. Again, I call b.s.
2. Historical coalitions. How, precisely, would out and open homosexuals participate in those coalitions? Black gay men and women were involved and "passed" or did work quietly behind the scenes.
3. I'm calling out every individual that supported that amendment, not merely individuals belonging to ethnic and minority groups that supported it by lopsided margins.
I too get angry looks when I equate the civil rights struggle for blacks with the civil rights struggle for GLBT.
No group should have to feel that they should reach a finite level of suffering before their struggle is worthy of consideration.
If this "rule of thumb" were in place then every successive group that seeks civil rights would have to suffer more than their previous group that sought the same rights. How moronic is that?
To attempt to justify the argument “gays can hide their sexual orientation but blacks can’t hide the color of skin” is failed logic. Once a gay is "out" they cannot become "un-gay". They cannot suck away the knowledge that they are gay from the public that knows them as gay. Furthermore, if you have never come out in the first place, you aren't counted amongst gays and therefore are not fighting for civil rights.