Picketing President Obama Is the Wrong Way to Get Blacks to Back Gay Marriage
The gay activists that picketed President Obama at a recent fundraising event in Los Angeles for allegedly not doing and saying enough to beat back Proposition 8 must have dropped in from another planet. Obama remains wildly popular among African-American voters and an attack on him for being less than resolute on gay rights does nothing but further tick black voters off. They'll need those voters now more than ever if they plop another initiative on the ballot in 2010. The measure would reverse Proposition 8 and legalize same sex marriage.
The Catholic Church and the Mormon groups dumped millions into the Proposition 8 initiative campaign. Yet even with their money and their drum beat media campaign, polls showed that Latinos marginally supported the proposition, Asians voted overwhelmingly against it and whites were split. Polls also showed that a majority of black voters in key parts of the state voted for it. Los Angeles was one. Nearly sixty percent of blacks backed the initiative. The black vote made the crucial difference in passing the initiative.
A well-heeled and probably well paid off core of preachers who head fundamentalist leaning, mega and medium-sized black churches held rallies and took to their pulpits and bible thumped their congregations to pass the initiative. Proposition 8 backers shrewdly flooded mailboxes in mostly black neighborhoods with a mailer that featured a stern faced Obama and his horribly out of context quote saying that he opposed gay marriage. Obama vehemently denounced Proposition 8.
Even if the ministers hadn't said a word about gay marriage, a significant number maybe even the majority of blacks might still have voted for it. The warning signs that black voters were susceptible to religious and conservative pitches to oppose gay marriage lit up in 1997. Then the late Green Bay Packers perennial all-pro defensive end Reggie White, an ordained fundamentalist minister stirred a firestorm when he took a huge swipe at gay rights and gay marriage in a speech to the Wisconsin state legislature. White became the first celebrity black evangelical to say publicly what many black religious leaders said and believed privately about gay issues. Few blacks joined in the loud chorus that condemned his remarks.
A year before White's outburst, a Pew Poll measured black attitudes toward gay marriage and found that blacks by an overwhelming margin opposed it. A CNN poll eight years later showed that anti-gay attitudes among blacks had not changed much since then. At a tightly packed press conference in October 2003, five of Michigan's top black prelates publicly called on the state legislature to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The ballot measure passed in November, and more than fifty percent of blacks backed it.
The same year the conservative Virginia-based Alliance for Marriage corralled a handful of top black preachers to plop their name on the Alliance's letterhead and tout the Alliance's anti-gay rights agenda.
At the NAACP convention in July 2004, there was some talk of taking a delegate vote to put the organization firmly on record backing gay rights. It didn't get far. Reverend Julius Caesar Hope, the head of the NAACP's religious affairs department, warned that a resolution to back gay marriage "would make some serious problems. I would think the membership would be overwhelmingly against it, based on our tradition in the black community."
Seven months before the November 2004 presidential election, a legion of black churchmen staged a rally on Capitol Hill, "We believed that we are faced with a challenge," Bishop Paul Morton thundered to the crowd, "God versus same-sex marriage and we will not compromise in that area." A day later an AME convention forbade its ministers from performing same-sex marriages.
In nearly every state since then where gay marriage bans have been enacted, conservative church-influenced blacks have been the driving force backing the bans. Christian fundamentalist groups have played hard on that sentiment.
At the same time, however, a significant percent of blacks have rejected the bigoted, narrow religious appeals of some black ministers and opposed gay marriage bans. Even in the winning Proposition 8 campaign, forty percent of black voters overall opposed the initiative. Many, perhaps the majority of blacks, can be won to back same sex marriage as a paramount civil rights issue. Because that's what it is. But picketing President Obama is the absolute wrong way to get them to do that.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard on weekly in Los Angeles at 9:30 AM Fridays on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and live streamed nationally on ktym.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
So, is your argument that we shouldn't level appropriate and deserved criticism at Obama because his skin color is the same as a group of people that we would like the political support of?
Ew. This discussion is an insult to all of us.
Exactly -- I'm only petitioning Obama to keep his promise because i respect him. I wouldn't try with Bush, etc......t
I guess the point is don't blame Blacks for this mess. Many groups voted against Prop 8, yet the LGBT community is focused solely on Blacks, picketing Obama appeared to be part of this.
Picket Obama based on what he has done and now what the California Supreme Court did. Also, picket your own State legislatures. Picket the Cali court. Picket Congress. Why single Obama out for picketing alone?
Obama has been President for 4 months. In that time he has consistently supported repealing DADT. He has taken consistent steps to provide gay community benefits, e.g., gay diplomats.
There are also Blacks in the LGBT community. You have Black allies. Don't let racial anger blind you to this reality.
Well it doesn't help that when it passed, the gay community blamed Blacks.
Where is there separation of state and church? There is none, as the IRS continues to give tax exemptions to hate organizations cloaked as religion, and allows its sheep to deduct sizeable contributions to their poisonous messages (see Civil Lights's pastor in SC get $1.6 million as salary as he goes on TV to "request" $200 contributions to spread his message of hate). The black churches are among the most odious--with their tired and worn-out theology, their short memories of what it was like to be muscled out of jobs, good housing, quality education--for they rose from being a marginalized people to a race that is so hate filled it makes them the new KKK in black robes.
Finally, a Black person pushes back on gay activism. It is about time. I and other commenters on this website have been crying foul about this for months. It is clear that gays don't care how Black people feel or think.
I do dispute the claims the wrtier makes about black churches. I was raised in the black church and have visited several black churches. I have NEVER been solicited to give money to anti gay groups. I have NEVER heard a Black preacher rant and rave about homsexuality. This may be something that is in California but what I have experienced is nothing like what he writes. I would like to know the congregation numbers associated with these black preachers who are anti gay.
I live in Ohio and when gay marriage was on the ballot the loudest voices against it were the white evangelicals in southern Ohio.
You're dead spot on. Black people in california are getting creamed. They're losing their jobs and houses in record numbers. That should be the top priority in the state. In Oakland recently the Mayor set aside new housing for transgendered people. Yet if you drive the streets of Oakland it's black and brown people living in cardboard boxes on the street. Yet, the media wants to talk about gay marriage? How absurd!
Don't make this black and brown vs. gay. Transgendered people suffer oppression and hardship similar to other minority groups. Something needs to be done for all of these communities and soon.
Man, if you could hear yourselves.
Transgendered people have *immense* difficulties getting housing from *anyone,* even if they can pay a year's lease in *cash.* (Which isn't necessarily very common, as transpeople are far more disadvantaged in employment and health care than almost anyone else: ex-cons get more protection
And they keep being used as an excuse to deny equal housing and anti-discrimination laws against *anyone* LBGT, usually ending up getting left out even of hate crimes laws when murder's one of the leading causes of death for transpeople under 45.
Ask how many people are willing to rent to a transperson of similar income, before you start thinking such a program is frivolous.
Listen. Half the reason black voters have come out in droves... against civil rights, has in fact been because the GOP and Religious Right have a habit of disinforming those communities about simple facts: they'll claim gay marriage will mean churches will be forced to marry gay couples, that it'll undermine black people's rights, ...the absurd notion is hammered on that gay rights somehow diminish the struggle for racial equality (Ask Coretta Scott King what she thinks of *that,*...
To wit, the black community shouldn't be divided against gay people just cause some Republican tells them to be. Certainly it shouldn't call gay people 'racist' just because some people who've just had their civil rights *removed* by a state appeal to or criticize the President of the United States and he happens to be black.
This isn't a zero-sum game where equal rights for some have to come out of someone else's equal rights. Even if you *don't* care for gay people, this isn't about that.
Your premise is BS. You assume black people are zombies that get their orders from the GOP, which isn't true.
Tanya, I have heard of some anti-gay black churches in the Midwest (oh, the Rev. James Meeks in Chicago is a notorious homo-hater), but I have not heard of many like that in this part of the country. I think that's a California thing, by and large.
why is this article hard to find?
Where is the suggestion for what we're supposed to do?
?
?
?
"Obama remains wildly popular among African-American voters and an attack on him for being less than resolute on gay rights does nothing but further tick black voters off. "
Obama's attacks on us deserve responses. It's an attack on gay people to proclaim they don't deserve marriage. It's an attack on gay people to fire them despite having earned medals for heroism and having served their country with distinction. It's an attack on gay people to pretend to be a candidate for positive change regarding civil rights and then hide behind claims of being too busy. Was Victor Fehrenbach too busy when he was called to serve? Obama had enough time for Rick Warren but not enough to repeal DADT.
Every day that gay people are disenfranchised is a day that we're under attack. Obama's proxy Gibbs, let alone the man himself, didn't say a thing about the Prop 8 decision. Silence is support.
The 1st Amendment makes the religious prejudices of any American irrelevant to our law. The 14th Amendment gives gay Americans full citizenship -- not partial citizenship that's determined by how popular we are.
Frankly, I'm still a strong Obama supporter, myself. He *did* speak against Prop 8, which when it comes to a court decision, is about all a President can do ...I sure wasn't expecting him to throw himself on the sword of the word 'marriage' and leave us with McCain and *Palin,* in office during the election.
Bush didn't know this, but it's not a President's job, yet.
I think it's on us to get support behind the best civil unions stuff in the legislature, (already a majority view,) of course support the courts' stands for our full equality, and ...well, be real humans to our fellow Americans, not abstractions or walking 'sins.'
It's going to be an involved struggle, but equal rights are coming. I don't think that being divided against Obama or having the black community divided against us, would be the way to go, either, ...that's the Right's doing, anyway... but it's still wildly unfair to imply 'Gays are racist for not being anti-gay themselves!' Or in fact to protest the divisions which *were* actually shown by the black community against us, or any others who claim to be among majorities when hurting us, and whine they're 'oppressed minorities' when called on it.
Gay and black aren't even mutually-exclusive, are they?
Best look at whose interests are really served by minorities being pitted against each other. Cause it ain't any of *us,* that's for sure.
"I think it's on us to get support behind the best civil unions stuff in the legislature"
I think it's on us to get support behind Segregation stuff in the legislature. (satire)
"I don't think that being divided against Obama or having the black community divided against us, would be the way to go, either,"
No one is forcing Obama to express the bigoted opinion that our relationships aren't as good -- that we don't deserve them to be dubbed marriage.
"Obama's attacks on us deserve responses.
Obama has never attacked the LGBT community. Shame on you for saying this.
Silence is not always support. Do not judge so quickly and completely.
He attacked us when he said our relationships aren't marriages.
As a black man, it's not an issue of "backing gay marriage," it's an issue of civil rights for all. "We" need to understand that, "we" had a Civil Rights Movement" but we don't own civil rights. It's a misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up, lest we be like the founders of this country: They left England, running from repression, and came hear and did the same damned thing.
Discrimanation should not be written into a constitution, "we" have already experienced that, and should not support it.
I agree with the article. Moreover, I think Obama is right not to get too vocal about it as marriage is a states' rights issue and the GOP will jump all over him for it, but this time with more leverage.
Well, it's a 'states' rights' issue to conservatives if a state wants to discriminate, ..suddenly it's about 'needing' a Federal 'Defense Of Marriage' act or Constitutional Amendment if a state comes out with anything *for* gay equality.
I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. If picketing Obama is NOT the way to get African Americans to back same-sex marriage, why not? The article gave a history of black churches and ministers opposing same-sex marriage, but did not make a statement as to WHY it's the wrong way. I presume that the author meant to imply that it was misdirected energy, but I couldn't infer that from the article, and instead had to surmise.
And I finished reading the article still waiting for a recommendation or recommendations from the author as to HOW best to proceed. Outreach to black churches and church-affiliated organizations, perhaps? Again, if it was implied, the article did not invite me to infer.
I wish the author had presented some suggested ways on how to most effectively begin that bridging between those seeking gay rights and those with the power in the black churches. Which ones should the gay-rights advocates spend their capital on? Which ones are (at this time) not a good return on investment? Where are the landmines in broaching a dialogue?
I'd like to thank the author for telling the gay rights advocates that their effort was, in his opinion, wasted.
That is a puzzling observation. Criticizing the movement without any constructive ideas to counter what he believes are wrong tactics. I mean if you're going to criticize us and tell us that the actions that have worked well in the past wont work for us, then at least give us a viable alternative. Otherwise it just feels like blanket criticism to fan the flames of intolerance
At least that's how I read it
So, if picketing the president and publicly showing our disappointment for the complete and utter silence President Obama has given on this issue is not the proper way to gain popular support for the issue, just what is? Most state laws that legalize gay marriage already include an exclusion for churches to not be forced to perform marriage equality ceremonies. So what, exactly, is the problem? Why, exactly, are blacks *supposedly* much more anti-gay than their caucasian neighbors? (which I don;t even believe is true by the way).
People have argued that comparing the gay movement to the black civil rights movment is apples to oranges, but really, apples, oranges, or cumquats, we're all fruit in the end, so what exactly is the non-religious objection by blacks to marriage equality?
I do think you pointed out one major flaw in the argument. It isn't blacks or latinos, per se, that are the problem. The predominantly caucasian Catholic and Mormon churches are the ones to blame. But people are making an incorrect correlation between race and religion, because, yes there is a larger percentage of blacks and latinos who adhere to religious values stronger than caucasians. But to me that isn't a race issue, that is a religion issue, and we will always have problems with religion condemning us
"we will always have problems with religion condemning us"
But the 1st Amendment exists! It prevents all forms of theocratic law. Religious beliefs cannot be the basis of legislation.
Plus, the 14th Amendment in conjunction with that means our civil rights/citizenship isn't partial -- with its extent determined by our popularity.
Your response is, at best, naive. Black preachers and congregations either have no knowledge of the Amendments to the Constitution (save those freeing black slaves) or chose to ignore them now that they have civil rights. What Black fundamentalists forget is that numerous gays marched with them and helped them to win freedom.
The 1st and 14th Amendments are a good read--but it is not practiced in the USA. If it were, the IRS would revoke the tax exempt status of these nefarious black and white churches preaching hate and label them for what they are: partisan fronts and hate organiizations. The black evangelical, Mormon, and Roman Catholic churches must be taxed to the maximum, and their leaders expelled as agents of foreign powers intent on destroying democracy in the USA (the RCs can fly to the Vatican--the others to whatever state would support their hate agenda--for example Iran).
I don't agree. Obama is our President, who just happens to be of mixed-race. That's like saying no one should've picketed Bush, because we need the white vote. Discrimination in any color is just wrong! Should one of those southern states have a proposition to reinstate slavery, would that be ok? Absolutely not!
All through the primaries and the election, we were told not to look at the skin color, but judge the man. Now, it's as if we're being told to look at the skin color....t
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
