Irony: Black Voters Killed Civil Rights for Gays

[B_kewlhandle]

Irony: Black Voters Killed Civil Rights for Gays

Interesting information here. We got some voter breakdowns on the same-sex marriage bans that passed in both California and in Florida. Now, it is fascinating. This is by Radley Balko at Reason.com: "My policy disagreements with Obama aside, last night was of course a historic chapter in America's long and sordid history of race relations. Unfortunately, another civil rights issue -- gay marriage -- went down to sweeping defeat. In California, the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage actually failed among white voters, 51-49. It was the 70 percent support from black voters that put the measure over the top." Seventy percent of black voters in California voted against gay marriage. They discriminated, that's exactly right. That's why he calls it a civil rights issue.

Florida's ban on gay marriage would have passed among white voters 60-40, but in Florida, black voters approved a ban on gay marriage by a vote of 71 to 29. So black voters in Florida discriminated against gays and lesbians, and black voters in California discriminated against gays and lesbians. In Arizona, the exit polling data not yet complete, but they banned gay marriage in Arizona, 56% of the vote, 55% from white and Latino voters. "So it seems likely that blacks were more enthusiastic about banning gay marriage than other ethnicities in that state, too." Well, Obama said he was against gay marriage, but there was a caveat, he then added he doesn't think tampering with the Constitution for things like civil rights is a good idea, or some such thing. He just hedged his bets. He said one thing and then said another. But here's the irony. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why I am your host. The irony in helping achieve one civil rights milestone leads to the defeat of another. I'm not laughing about it, but still. Last night's historic black turnout helped perpetuate state sanctioned discrimination against gay couples that want to marry.

--Rush Limbaugh

 

[B_Nick4444]

exposes the rhetoric of equality for what it is

also highlights what I've been saying about the ideology of victimization -- creates categories, and identifications and divisions within the terms of those reifications

nothing ironic here

 

[Principessa]

Someone asked how it was possible that all of the gay rights initiatives were voted down across the board. They mentioned something about black and hispanic voters voting en masse, but didn't go into detail about them. I thought everyone knew that homosexuality is not commonly accepted in the traditional black or hispanic household. Especially if the household is Christian, they hide behind Leviticus 18:22 :irked:

FWIW: As a black fag hag I resent having the failure of these propositions laid at my feet. It's not my fault, perhaps there should have been more campaigning so people would understand the law .

 

[B_Nick4444]

funny

the way I hear it, Christianity reposes on Christ, and His teachings

who would not approve of these Fundamentalists' or LDS activities and urgings

BTW, one merely has to listen to HipHop, or whatever black popular music is called these days, to recognize it (the relevant homophobia) has nothing to do with a religious context; ditto Latino popular mass street culture

 

[Flashy]

Well, i wouldn't trust anything coming from Rush Limbaugh...but if someone can present the accurate statistics that african americans voted against gay rights in much higher numbers, i would like to see them...if it turns out to be true, it is certainly very disappointing.

 

[B_Nick8]

Someone asked how it was possible that all of the gay rights initiatives were voted down across the board. They mentioned something about black and hispanic voters voting en masse, but didn't go into detail about them. I thought everyone knew that homosexuality is not commonly accepted in the traditional black or hispanic household. Especially if the household is Christian, they hide behind Leviticus 18:22 :irked:

It's unfortunate but true. Nj and I are going to have to get married on this one. Can you spell miscegenation?

 

[Flashy]

Especially if the household is Christian, they hide behind Leviticus 18:22 :irked:

that is sadly ironic...wasn't it the segregationist a-hole ministers who said that god ordained segregation and used some part of the bible to justify it?

 

[Principessa]

It's unfortunate but true. Nj and I are going to have to get married on this one. Can you spell miscegenation?

:biggrin1: I'd marry you in a NYC minute if I thought it would help the cause. However I don't want to give your mother a heart attack. :tongue:

 

[Principessa]

Rabbi: No on Prop. 8

John Sherwood
Sunday, October 26, 2008

Those who fan the flames of passion to support Proposition 8 are doing so with less than total intellectual honesty. They are calling it a campaign in defense of marriage. I cannot imagine how denying the civil rights of gays to marry threatens my marriage to my wife. The supporters claim that the religious community is united with them in their message. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the supporters of their campaign wish to use the California Constitution to attack the religions that dare to disagree with them.

Consider the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, which represents the spiritual leadership of all the major movements in the Jewish community. In upholding the principle of the separation of synagogue and state, and recognizing that to officiate at any wedding is a matter of religious discretion of the clergy and is not legislated by California civil law, the board passed a resolution to oppose any effort to eliminate the civil rights of any citizen, and urged its members and the Jewish community to oppose Proposition 8, which would eliminate the equal rights of gay men and lesbians to civilly marry and deny them equality under the law.

In addition, the Christian community is divided on this issue. For example, many Christian ministers, reflecting the leadership of many denominations, now routinely officiate at same-sex weddings. Not only that, but Morris A. Thurston, a professor at Brigham Young University law school, confirms what others have been saying for weeks, that the advertising claims that the measure would affect teaching or schools are untrue and misleading, and that nothing in Proposition 8 would affect California schools. There is even a Web site sponsored by Mormons who do not support their church's active campaign against gay marriage. Furthermore, I know of Catholic priests who strongly support a no on 8 vote. Many of my associates in Methodist, Lutheran, Disciples of Christ, Congregationalist and Episcopal pulpits, as well as other protestant clergy, have taken stands against this insidious attempt to take away basic civil rights.

As a rabbi who has been active in the interfaith community for decades, I respect the rights of my friends and colleagues of other religions to express their opinions on what they regard as moral issues. I must also stand up for my right to categorically disagree with them when they not only express opinions that are contrary to mine and other people of faith. Moreover, when arguments for this attempt to take away the civil rights of literally hundreds of thousands of our citizens misstate facts, I am obligated to call attention to the truth.

It is an utter falsehood that teachers will be required to teach about gay marriage if Californians vote to deny the demands of one set of faiths. It is an utter falsehood that religious leaders and religious institutions will be threatened by lawsuits if Californians vote to deny the demands of one set of faiths. It is an utter falsehood to state that any heterosexual marriage is threatened by gay marriage. It is an utter falsehood to state that Christianity is united in its support of this proposition. In fact, articles by Christian leadership abound in opposition, as I noted above.

Why is it important that this proposition fail? Because, it is in the same spirit of the denial of civil rights that applied to interracial couples in the early years of our nation. What gives any of us the right to deny to our fellow citizens the right to love, to form families, the right to be treated equally by the law?

If a given religious institution chooses not to bless the unions of its gay members, let it do so, and let those members choose to remain there as second-class citizens, or let them move to another faith that supports its congregants equally.

Let each pulpit tell its members what it thinks is right for them, but not use the force of law to deny other faiths the right to practice what they believe to be true and valid. The free exercise of religion gives each of us the right to practice our faith as we please.

There are literally thousands of clergy who are totally comfortable officiating at gay weddings. We strongly believe that those who disagree with us have the right to refuse to bless the unions of gay couples. By the same token, do not seek to take away our right to teach, preach and practice Scripture as we understand it.
Proposition 8 not only takes away the civil rights of the gay population, it takes away the religious freedom of both clergy and laity in thousands of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and the like. Vote no on Proposition 8!

— Rabbi John Sherwood lives in Oxnard.

 

[HotBulge]

Let's not forget about all the out-of-state $$ that goes into stirring up these pseudo-moral controversies. Conservative groups spin gay marriage as though the state were sanctioning marriage when, in fact, the argument for gay marriage is an equal application and protection of rights under the law. It's the same as abortion; those people who misunderstand it believe that the government is sanctioning it. One may not personally believe in abortion, but if there is Equality under the law, then one should not impinge upon another woman's right to decide what to do with her own body. It's the same with gay marriage: one may not personally condone it, but at the same time, US law should not perpetuate a form of 2nd class citizenship by denying gays the human right to marry.

 

[B_Nick4444]

(1) BTW, one merely has to listen to HipHop, or whatever black popular music is called these days, to recognize it (the relevant homophobia) has nothing to do with a religious context; ditto Latino popular mass street culture

(2) We have a lot of black Jews in Cali?:tongue:

**This concludes my posting on this thread**

Rabbi: No on Prop. 8

John Sherwood
Sunday, October 26, 2008

Those who fan the flames of passion to support Proposition 8 are doing so with less than total intellectual honesty. They are calling it a campaign in defense of marriage. I cannot imagine how denying the civil rights of gays to marry threatens my marriage to my wife. The supporters claim that the religious community is united with them in their message. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the supporters of their campaign wish to use the California Constitution to attack the religions that dare to disagree with them.

Consider the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, which represents the spiritual leadership of all the major movements in the Jewish community. In upholding the principle of the separation of synagogue and state, and recognizing that to officiate at any wedding is a matter of religious discretion of the clergy and is not legislated by California civil law, the board passed a resolution to oppose any effort to eliminate the civil rights of any citizen, and urged its members and the Jewish community to oppose Proposition 8, which would eliminate the equal rights of gay men and lesbians to civilly marry and deny them equality under the law.

In addition, the Christian community is divided on this issue. For example, many Christian ministers, reflecting the leadership of many denominations, now routinely officiate at same-sex weddings. Not only that, but Morris A. Thurston, a professor at Brigham Young University law school, confirms what others have been saying for weeks, that the advertising claims that the measure would affect teaching or schools are untrue and misleading, and that nothing in Proposition 8 would affect California schools. There is even a Web site sponsored by Mormons who do not support their church's active campaign against gay marriage. Furthermore, I know of Catholic priests who strongly support a no on 8 vote. Many of my associates in Methodist, Lutheran, Disciples of Christ, Congregationalist and Episcopal pulpits, as well as other protestant clergy, have taken stands against this insidious attempt to take away basic civil rights.

As a rabbi who has been active in the interfaith community for decades, I respect the rights of my friends and colleagues of other religions to express their opinions on what they regard as moral issues. I must also stand up for my right to categorically disagree with them when they not only express opinions that are contrary to mine and other people of faith. Moreover, when arguments for this attempt to take away the civil rights of literally hundreds of thousands of our citizens misstate facts, I am obligated to call attention to the truth.

It is an utter falsehood that teachers will be required to teach about gay marriage if Californians vote to deny the demands of one set of faiths. It is an utter falsehood that religious leaders and religious institutions will be threatened by lawsuits if Californians vote to deny the demands of one set of faiths. It is an utter falsehood to state that any heterosexual marriage is threatened by gay marriage. It is an utter falsehood to state that Christianity is united in its support of this proposition. In fact, articles by Christian leadership abound in opposition, as I noted above.

Why is it important that this proposition fail? Because, it is in the same spirit of the denial of civil rights that applied to interracial couples in the early years of our nation. What gives any of us the right to deny to our fellow citizens the right to love, to form families, the right to be treated equally by the law?

If a given religious institution chooses not to bless the unions of its gay members, let it do so, and let those members choose to remain there as second-class citizens, or let them move to another faith that supports its congregants equally.

Let each pulpit tell its members what it thinks is right for them, but not use the force of law to deny other faiths the right to practice what they believe to be true and valid. The free exercise of religion gives each of us the right to practice our faith as we please.

There are literally thousands of clergy who are totally comfortable officiating at gay weddings. We strongly believe that those who disagree with us have the right to refuse to bless the unions of gay couples. By the same token, do not seek to take away our right to teach, preach and practice Scripture as we understand it.
Proposition 8 not only takes away the civil rights of the gay population, it takes away the religious freedom of both clergy and laity in thousands of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and the like. Vote no on Proposition 8!

— Rabbi John Sherwood lives in Oxnard.

 

[Qua]

then one should not impinge upon another woman's right to decide what to do with her own body.

Overall, I agree with your post, but I wanted to point out this one piece of pro-choice/pro-life bs that really bothers me. Because how is the body of an unborn child a woman's body, other than the fact that the child needs the woman's body to survive? The irony of a woman protecting her right to control her body by forcibly removing and killing the body of an unborn child is rather touchy for me.

The degree of spin and euphamistic rhetorical bs on both sides of the abortion issue is sickening, and disturbingly accepted as dogma by Americans.

 

[Principessa]

Not for nothing but Rush Limabugh is a big, fat idiot. :12: How dare he or anyone else blame the entire black race for the gay marriage law failing. :12: :irked:

It took 100 years to get white men to recognize black males as men and stop calling them boy. Don't get me started on Jim Crow laws. Or Loving vs. The State of Virginia in 1967, which reversed The 1924 Anti- Miscegenation law.

Up until 1974 homosexuality was seen as a mental illness. We are coming up on the 40th anniversary of Stonewall next year. My point, and I do have one; is that change takes time.

 

[b.c.]

If the statistics cited are true then it is appalling indeed that fellow Blacks have not yet come to the realization that discrimination of any kind is ultimately harmful to us all, and that gay rights is indeed a civil rights issue.

Unfortunately, too many (as I've said elsewhere) are influenced by religion and/or irrational fears. However I think/hope that if any political party is more likely to influence future legislation (or appoint justices) that may be more inclined to protect the rights of gays it is more likely the Democratic one.

Re. abortion I am personally in favor of a woman's right to choose within a certain time frame.

Not I however, nor anyone I personally know, have or would choose that option unless a life threatening situation existed that left no other option.

 

[Ururu18]

I"m straight and I'm Black and I find it appalling that people don't understand that marriage is marriage no matter how you slice it and Gays deserve the right to be married and miserable just like straight people ( kidding). Gays are human beings and if other humans can get married logically Gays, as human beings should be able to get married, therefore this a clear case of discrimination,something the Blacks and Latinos of America are all too familiar with, yet they do it to another group of people? It's sick and horrible to deny another people, based on their sexual orientation, the right to do anything. It's Sick, unconstitutional, hypocritical and wrong what people are doing to gays. Don't worry, guys, you always have me on your side.

 

[bobabooey69]

America took one step forward with BO, maybe someday we'll have a homosexual president...I am not kidding, it will happen.

 

[B_liltomnotsolil]

my thread, which rightfully attacks black people who voted yes on discrimination of gays, got deleted.

so much for freedom of speech

 

[nudeyorker]

It is not your freedom of speech that caused the thread to be taken off the forum it is how you chose to use your freedom of speech, in this case incorrectly. Everyone is allowed their opinions, however as in every printed and televised media and public forum if what you say is racist and insulting it will not be tolerated.
Please consider your freedom of speech as well as the Terms of Service agreement at LPSG when you exercise your freedom of speech in the future.
On behalf of the Moderating Board,
NY

 

[B_liltomnotsolil]

It is not your freedom of speech that caused the thread to be taken off the forum it is how you chose to use your freedom of speech, in this case incorrectly. Everyone is allowed their opinions, however as in every printed and televised media and public forum if what you say is racist and insulting it will not be tolerated.
Please consider your freedom of speech as well as the Terms of Service agreement at LPSG when you exercise your freedom of speech in the future.
On behalf of the Moderating Board,
NY

omg i wasnt being racist!

ffs

 

[Xcuze]

my thread, which rightfully attacks black people who voted yes on discrimination of gays, got deleted.

so much for freedom of speech

Yeah I noticed that!

Racist comments or those judged as such are very quickly jumped upon round here. Its the quickest way to get banned for sure. Be grateful you are still here! For now anyway.

Personally I find it a bit annoying & biased. You certainly dont see the same reactions to homophobic comments. But thats America for you.