Topic: Gay Rights
Blacks and California's Prop 8 The proposition that ended gay marriage in California shines a light on the cultural divide between blacks and gays.by RS Davis
(libertarian)
Friday, November 14, 2008
Barack Obama brought African-Americans to the polls in record numbers, with 95% of registered blacks voting, and 66.8% of eligible blacks voting. That is the highest turnout since 1964 - the year that the Civil Rights Act passed, and the year before the Voting Rights Act - when blacks turned out at a rate of 58.6%. This election also marked the first time in history when the black voter turnout percentage was actually higher than the white voter turnout.
As it turns out, having Prop 8, which re-enshrined marriage apartheid in California, on the same ballot as Barack Obama hurt the gay marriage cause. Many liberals expected a high black turnout to usher in the age of Obama, but what liberals didn't count on is that blacks do not march lock-step with the Democratic Party, even if they vote almost exclusively for Democrats.
Traditionally, blacks are a lot more socially conservative than other Democratic demographics. Back in July, the gay publication Southern Voice reported about that particular issue, and concluded that "despite growing support for same-sex marriage in the United States as measured by several recent polls, black Americans remain steadfastly opposed to gay unions."
According to researchers from the National Black Justice Coalition, fully two thirds of blacks are opposed to gay marriage, and it bears out in the election results, with 70% of black voters voting for Prop 8. The report, called At the Crossroads: African American Attitudes, Perceptions, and Beliefs toward Marriage Equality, showed that blacks are "virtually the only constituency in the country that has not become more supportive over the last dozen years, falling from a high of 65 percent support for gay rights in 1996 to only 40 percent in 2004."
Indeed, among whites, support for gay marriage has risen to 46%, among Latinos to 35%, and among Asians-Pacific Islanders to 55%, which, according to the report, represents "strong gains in each of these groups except for blacks."
Gay billionaire and Obama supporter David Geffen lays much of the blame for this at the feet of gay activists: "So many African Americans don’t look at gay marriage as a civil rights issue. They look on it as a religious one. And we, for whatever reason…fear? Arrogance? Complacency? We did not do enough outreach to them. We need to begin a dialogue with them, because we should be putting this back on the ballot every election every year until we win."
It's true that many blacks bristle at having their civil rights struggle used as a comparison for the struggle for gay rights. In 2004, at a rally of black Christians against gay marriage in Arlington, TX, Dwight McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church and president of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention’s Pastors’ Conference, said, "At the dawn of this new millennium, the church of the living God cannot allow the gay rights movement to hitch itself to the civil rights movement without first putting up a fight." He called the comparison "insulting, offensive and racist," and added, "To compare civil rights with gay rights is to compare my skin with their sin."
And in Atlanta in 2005, dozens of black pastors signed a declaration saying that "To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire civil rights movement."
Coretta Scott King, wife of late civil rights pioneer Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, disagreed, saying also in 2005, "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union."
And Julian Bond, chair of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, echoed her sentiment, commenting that "Many gays, many lesbians, worked side by side with me in the civil rights movement. Am I supposed to tell them now thanks for risking their lives and their limbs to help me win my rights but that they are excluded because of the circumstances of their birth? Not a chance."
But I think there's also a certain machismo present in the black community that may work against gay rights. In 2003, The New York Times reported that "blacks make up only 12 percent of the population in America, but they account for half of all new reported H.I.V. infections." They further stated that according to the CDC, "one-third of young urban black men who have sex with men in this country are H.I.V.-positive, and 90 percent of those are unaware of their infection."
They blame a cultural divide between blacks and gays for this problem, saying that blacks are reluctant to have an honest dialogue about homosexuality because it appears "effeminent and white," while gays have focused mostly on openly gay white people.
Evidence of this macho attitude can be illustrated in the practice of gay sex between black men who live otherwise straight lives. They call this being on the downlow, or the DL.
This isn't just a description of discreet behavior - men of every race have secret sexual liasons with other men. What makes this phenomenon unique is that it is an organized subculture, with clubs like Flex in Cleveland and chat rooms like AOL's DLThugs, all catering to black men who want to organize and meet to have secret sex, while maintining their masculine black identities.
My own personal experience seems to back this up. I have had a few openly gay black friends, and they all hung out with my gay white friends, rather than straight black friends. To be openly gay and black is to renounce your black identity for your gay identity.
Geffen is right. The gay activist community needs to reach out to the black community, and the first thing they have to convince them of is that being gay is not a lifestyle choice, but an inexorable part of who a gay person is. Whether it is biology or environment, a gay person can no more give it up and be straight than a straight person could just decide one day to give being gay a shot.
Rev. Larry Brumfield, a black pastor at Westminster Church of the Brethren in northern Maryland, said "I think a lot of folk think it’s a conscious choice, but like blue eyes or green eyes, it’s how God made us." Until the majority of blacks accept this, gays will have an uphill battle among that demographic, and the black community will continue to be ravaged by an invisible epidemic of avoidable HIV.
There is some hope for the future, though, as voters under 30 of any racial demographic voted 63% against the ban. So, perhaps the inroads have already been made, but we have not yet seen their fruits.
Those who value freedom better hope so.
_________________________________
More of my writing on gay issues:
New York Recognizes Gay Marriage (For Now) Published: May 29, 2008 The political and Constitutional labyrinth that led to New York recognizing gay marriages from other states.
Eddie Walker Walks Published: May 23, 2008 South Carolina principal quits over Gay-Straight Alliance Club. Good for him.
The Case of Mehdi Kazemi Published: May 21, 2008 The life and death struggle of just being yourself in Iran.
The views expressed in this
article are those of RS Davis only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. RS Davis is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Yeah, science has not been able to answer the question of what makes one homosexual. When it does, it will open up a pandora's box of new ethical questions - like, if it is genetic, should one be able to abort a fetus that has a high probability of being gay?
But as far as civil rights are concerned, it is irellevant.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-11-24 15:30:07
The definition of marriage, since history began, has been the making of one flesh between a man and woman. Not only does the woman become bone of the man’s bone again ( the woman was formed from the man and she becomes rejoined to the constituent part from which she was detached ) but in their union they create another life that has elements of them both. When the animals went into the ark they went in two by two, they went in male and female. None of this has to do with rights. it’s just a fact of creation. Rights or no rights it’s a truth that cannot be altered.
If a man wants to have sex with a pavement or chest of drawers, no matter how much he demands the right to call this a marriage, we would regard him with the same pity as we would a man who has the right to be called a teapot or poached egg. He can demand as much as he wants, create legislation and even if, through threatening the lives of those who refuse to recognise his category mistake, he succeeds in being universally recognised as a poached egg, he will still not be a poached egg.
Proposition 8 has nothing to with rights. Why the black population voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8 was because they saw that their civil rights to be recognised as human beings was being trivialised and diminished by the homosexuals. They instinctively understand that being homosexual is not immutable and inherent, but a more a disability. Are black people then disabled ?Can they be cured of blackness? No wonder they are deeply offended by linking the black civil rights movement with the Folsom Street Fairs
The definition of marriage, since history began, has been the making of one flesh between a man and woman. Not only does the woman become bone of the man’s bone again ( the woman was formed from the man and she becomes rejoined to the constituent part from which she was detached ) but in their union they create another life that has elements of them both. When the animals went into the ark they went in two by two, they went in male and female. None of this has to do with rights. it’s just a fact of creation. Rights or no rights it’s a truth that cannot be altered.
Well, the Ark stuff, maybe, if you believe that story. But the history of the world shows us that the idea of one man, one woman, marrying for love is a recent invention.
If a man wants to have sex with a pavement or chest of drawers, no matter how much he demands the right to call this a marriage, we would regard him with the same pity as we would a man who has the right to be called a teapot or poached egg. He can demand as much as he wants, create legislation and even if, through threatening the lives of those who refuse to recognise his category mistake, he succeeds in being universally recognised as a poached egg, he will still not be a poached egg.
Whatever, dude, as long as the two unions between consenting adults are regarded as equal before the law, I don't care what you call it.
Proposition 8 has nothing to with rights. Why the black population voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8 was because they saw that their civil rights to be recognised as human beings was being trivialised and diminished by the homosexuals. They instinctively understand that being homosexual is not immutable and inherent, but a more a disability. Are black people then disabled ?Can they be cured of blackness? No wonder they are deeply offended by linking the black civil rights movement with the Folsom Street Fairs.
Posted By: david skinner
Date: 2008-11-24 23:59:53
Rick, The Bible makes no mention of other configurations of marriage apart from male and female, nor is there any mention of the two waiting until their personal lives ”image the love and justice of Christ.” in order to become one flesh. There have been marriages created for all manner of reasons, apart from love, such as those of economy, politics and plain convenience, as with the case of Henry V11 who married Elizabeth of York in order to re-unite England after the bloody and decimating Wars of the Roses. He grew to love his wife and lost the will to live after her death. Theirs’ was a marriage of convenience which they allowed to bloom into a loving relationship.
C.S. Lewis in “ The Four Loves” says:
“Most of our ancestors were married off in the early years of youth to partners chosen by their parents on grounds that had nothing to with Eros. They went to the (sexual) act with no other “fuel”, to speak, than plain animal desire. And they did right; honest Christian husbands and wives, obeying their fathers and mothers, discharging to one another their “marriage debt”, and bringing up families in the fear of the Lord. Conversely, this act, done under the influence of a soaring and iridescent Eros which reduces the role of the senses to a minor consideration, may yet be plain adultery, may involve breaking a wife’s heart, deceiving a husband, betraying a friend, polluting hospitality and deserting your children.” Like the June Bride Jean Robinson.
Frances Schaeffer, talking about Dante, the Italian poet who fell in love with a young girl called, Beatrice at first sight, said that he loved her with a spiritual passion all his life. Then he married another woman who bore his children and washed his dishes but he never forsook his love for Beatrice. Schaeffer said that It has not pleased God that the distinction between a sin and a duty should turn on fine feelings. This act, like any other, is justified ( or not) by far more prosaic and definable criteria; by the keeping or breaking of promises, by justice or injustice, by charity or selfishness, by obedience or disobedience.
Again to loosely borrow from C.S. Lewis, Gene Robinson and his “June bride” could say to one another in an almost sacrificial spirit, “It is for love’s sake that we have led astray young people in the church and those weak in their faith.” They may even feel a particular merit in such sacrifices to the idol of such love; what costlier offering can be laid on the love’s altar than one’s conscience and the break up of the Anglican communion.
So Rick when you say that romantic love is a fairly recent invention, I would agree that the romantic novelists of the 19th and 18th century laid the foundations for the need to “fall in love, ” an essentially narcissistic love. But nothing is new; infatuation has been recorded since history began, as with the story of Jacob and Rachel.
When you say,
“Whatever, dude, as long as the two unions between consenting adults are regarded as equal before the law, I don't care what you call it.”
I think you are saying, correct me if I am wrong that , what consenting parties do is none of our business ; that we must live and let live. Fine, but the campaign to normalise homosexuality is riddled with dishonesty and selectivity, for in the next breath we are told that we must be inclusive and affirm what they do. Its exactly like someone saying that they are going to destroy someone’s garden and that it is none of our business and then demanding that it is our business when affirming what they do. They want it both ways. We have gone from tolerance to being made to forcibly accept Folsom Street Fair behaviour. Our families and children are being forced to accept relationships that are short term, multiple, come in all shapes and sizes and eventually lead to mental illness and an early grave.
The bottom line is that the penis needs to be joined to its constituent part, the vagina. The penis may fit other orifices and I can think of many more beside the anus, e.g. the nostrils and bath taps even, but they don’t belong there.
“Gay people cannot be cured of gayness.” Who are you to say what is and what is not possible? No doubt you would have anyone who claimed to have been straightened from the crooked path to be sectioned and sent for therapy in order to rebend them?
Like all other human conditions that can healed, this one can also:
[link edited for length] . . . . . . . . . Anglican [link edited for length] . . . . . Episcopal [link edited for length] . . . . . . . . . . . . . families/friends [link edited for length] . . . . . . . . Jewish [link edited for length] . . gen. info. [link edited for length] . . . . . . . . . . gen. info. [link edited for length] . . . . . . . . . . . . science/research/law [link edited for length] . . gen. info. [link edited for length] . . . . . . . . . . . Presbyterian (excellent links page)[link edited for length] . . . . . . . . . RC [link edited for length] . parachurch counsel [link edited for length] . . . . . . . . parachurch counsel [link edited for length] . . . . . . . . resource link [link edited for length] . . . . . . . .resource link [link edited for length] . . . . . . . medical issues & gay sex [link edited for length] . . . . . . . Christian youth [link edited for length] . . . . . . . . faith neutral youth site [link edited for length] . . .includes over 80 testimonies [link edited for length] . . . effects of same-sex parenting
Finally I am as guilty as anyone of breaking the ten commandments concerning dishonouring my parents, adultery, murder, stealing, lying and greed, if not in actuality then in my mind. I also have traits, addictions, compulsions and urges which, try as I might I find it humanly impossible to break, therefore I speak not from moral superiority or judgementalism but simply as one who wants to warn people that the worst thing that is going to happen is not global warming, the collapse of the world economy, the threat of Islam, a nuclear strike from Iran, or a pandemic of ebola, but the return of Jesus Christ and judgment.
Hebrews 4:14 says “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
