Obama Wins. And So Does Fear, Hate and Prop 8

The cheers, the tears, the jubilation over the election of our 44th president. All of it deserved. But some of it overshadowed by the harsh, white light of reality that burned in the west. As Americans -- many of whom have never even had a black man for a boss -- elected a person of color president, a narrow but sharp margin of Californians stole the rights of her citizens. By supporting bailot proposition number 8 they refused gays the right to marry.

Two other gay marriage bans, in Florida and Arizona, also passed. But the egregiousness of Prop 8 is compounded by the fact California had previously allowed for same sex marriages. Rights were not merely denied, they were removed. Citizens stripped of previously granted privileges. "Privileges" which should be protected under the Constitution to begin with.

In the new age of Barack Obama there is perhaps no greater lingering vestige of systemic bigotry than the barring of same sex marriages. The hypocrisy and false piety of the deniers aside, the relationships of gays have no effect on heteros. Especially all the heteros who've done such a marvelous job of debasing marriage on their own all these many years. Politicians on the left and right love to expatiate on the need to defend "traditional" marriage. Usually just prior to engaging in some extra-marital affair with a paramour or boy toy or just an old fashioned hooker. And fine. Have at it. I'm no moralist. Do as you please as long as you balance the budget. But until politicos take a true stand in defense of marriage by proposing an anti-adultry amendment to the Constitution, stop demonizing gays and lesbians when the one debasing your marriage is the individual in the mirror.

Why is it that the very people who have fought so hard and so long for the simple entitlement to love whom they choose to love are the very ones denied that right by those who routinely take their vows for granted?

And the specious arguments about protecting the sanctity of marriage?

May I remind you of the words of Congressman Seaborn Roddenbery of Georgia on non-traditional relationships:

"It is contrary and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is contrary and averse to the very principles of a pure Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. No more voracious parasite ever sucked at the heart of pure society and moral status."

Congressman Roddenbery spoke those words back in 1912 when he tried to introduce an amendment to the Constitution banning interracial marriage.

Nobody remembers Seaborn Roddenbery.

Today a biracial man is president elect.

Gay marriage will be universally accepted in time. But if I may be so bold as to say to gays and lesbians, don't wait for that time to arrive. Just as my father and his generation did not "wait" for their civil rights, nor should you. The toothpaste ain't going back in the tube. The tide has turned. Don't let anyone tell you to calm down, sit quiet and be patient. Don't let politicians beguile you with their sophistry and semantics on how civil unions will do just fine. Through the power of the courts and the will of instinct and moral authority fight this.

Fight it.

For all the bromides about "left coast" politics, as goes California so goes the nation. The 18,000 same sex couples in our state who are already married deserve not only clarity on their status, but surety. Surety that not only will their status NOT change, but that their ranks will be enhanced.

For those who believe in change, "yes, we can" is already yesterday's catch phrase. Today it is: "now, we must."

Comments

[LollieDotCom]

If California had been papered with this before November 4th, Prop 8 would never have passed.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf

Mildred Loving's full statement about freedom to marry. Everyone should read it. If you don't cry when you read it, you're not a human being. Please use your favorite social sites to buzz it up.

There is only one cure for ignorance - and that's education.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf

[Lust4Lost]

the easy solution to this is to remove government from the marriage business. how many billions of our tax dollars are spent yearly as we willingly allow the government into our homes and bedrooms.

government sanctioned marriage of any kind (straight or gay) creates two classes of citizens, those married and those single.

this is an incredibly simple solution yet we are so rooted in tradition and incapable of thinking outside the box we end up digging deeper holes on a constant basis

[FZliveson]

You are wrong, dude, when you say:
"Rights were not merely denied, they were removed. Citizens stripped of previously granted privileges. "Privileges" which should be protected under the Constitution to begin with."
The citizens of the State of California voted, overwhelmingly against gay MARRIAGE.
Some judge overruled the will of the people and it was the people again who amended the constitution to take away the right of a judge to legislate from the bench. It is not about hating gay people. It is about defending the definition of "marriage.­" Let "them" ask for some form of protected civil union, they will get the nod from almost everyone. It is ego and semantics not what who does with whom when the lights are out. Get it?

[JudgeMoonbox]

"The citizens of the State of California voted, overwhelmingly against gay MARRIAGE."

First, what is "overwhelmingly?" I think the actual percentage is a squeaker.

"Some judge overruled the will of the people and it was the people again who amended the constitution to take away the right of a judge to legislate from the bench."

Let's say that Bill Clinton ran for a third term and won. If the Supreme Court said that he vioated the 22nd Amendment, would that be "legislating from the bench?"

The California State Constitution promises equality. The Supreme Court said that this promise must be kept. Exactly where does the judicial legislation come in?

"It is not about hating gay people."

If it isn't, what would motivate people to ratify such a dishonest campaign as the Proposition 8 organizers ran?

"It is about defending the definition of "marriage.­'"

Against what danger? Massachusetts has had gay marriages for 5 years now. Has their divorce rate skyrocketed in comparison with other Northern states?

"Let "them" ask for some form of protected civil union, they will get the nod from almost everyone."

The behavior of the organizers of Proposition H8 tells me otherwise. If such an experiment is actually tried, I can only hope that the voters will be less naive about the dishonest rhetoric.

[Nommo]

Rids, when have hate and fear not ruled America?

[ADVOCATE4ZPG]

If homosexual couples, single gays, etc. could have reconciled themselves to the creation of a new word--a new label--for their "institution," they would have circumvented MOST opposition. If the U.S. public knew that this cohort was NOT coopting the word "marriage," "gay unions" could EASILY coexist along side "hetereose­xual"(unne­cessary!) marriage.

There are many very creative, inventive, and sentient "gay" people. Why hasn't this cohort looked back into Greek or Sanskrit for the basis of a NEOLOGISM which embodies--even better than MARRIAGE--their NEW institutio­n.... It's not too late, but the "gay" cohort is foolishly stubborn on this issue!

[gaydm]

We do not wish, as same sex couples, to have some "superior" form of union over "hetero" sex couples.Th­at is why we would just assume have an EQUAL union based on existing laws. We will settle for the "inferior" civil marriage that you "heterosexuals" have. I see no need to go the extra length of creating a "SUPERIOR" relationship for gays. Unless of course you would rather we do?

[ReHoover51]

what i dont understand is that our state and federal constitutions provide provisions that keep the majority from out voting the minority when it comes to discrimination!!
how could this prop even be placed on our ballot.
i am not gay, dont have as many gay friends as i used to, but this isnt about sexual orientation - its about equality.
our constitution actually says "all men are created equal" and it meant ONLY that ... not women or black men ... but that is as archaic, today, as the bible and has NO valid use in our society.
this is not a civilized thing to do to any group of human beings!!!

[SaintJimmy]

Ah, yes. The old "separate but equal" doctrine. Because that's been soooo successful in the past.

[ReHoover51]

WHERE DOES RELIGION COME IN???? it is fairy tale believers run by snake-oil salesMEN that are only in it for the $$$$ and to get a little from your sons and daughters!!!
hence the reason for rational, non-delusonal thinking ...
it isnt what would jesus do, its what would a reasonable rational person do!
GET A CLUE ... 2000 years of torture, molestation, murder in the name of jesus must mean something isnt right here!!!
i think all those that want this modification to the state or federal constitution should be placed in internment camps and all rights taken away - just to give them a taste of real american prejudice!!
religious morons are the most prejudice, mean-spirited, war-mongering of all humans - especially those that "follow" jesus.
bush is a jesus nut case and he actually got away with convincing all you fools that g*d wanted him to invade iraq ... even if it murdered 1000s and 1000s and 1000s of innocent men women and children
if we kept the religious folk silent in our daily lives we would be approaching a civilized society ...
religion is the biggest scam ever forced on humanity ...
PRIESTS SHOULD SHUT THE F*CK UP AND LEAVE CHILDREN ALONE - IT IS CHILD ABUSE TO TEACH HELL AND DAMNATION (besides being a lie!) AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANYONE ...

[Norge]

Perhaps much of people's fears about gays etc. actually stems from their lack of knowledge about their own sexuality. Their own secrets they have in their hearts about themselves they externalize through denials to others.

Perhaps though one fact is certain, fear blinds and for people to come through their fears they must be wisely lead through their fears and I hope Obama is and will be one of the new and wise leaders.

[Smith808]

(CONTINUED)
I feel like we are being blamed for what is really the elephant in the room…homophobia. Have we intentionally ignored this truth while marching and voting in support of AA rights, knowing that some day it would surface to kick us in the teeth? I suspect there would have been an enormous backlash had gays and lesbians voted 70% for a similar measure against AA’s. I have tried to meet the community half-way, but I am being blamed for not having been clever and rich enough to have sold a better argument against discrimination to African Americans. I’m 70% convinced this will have to be won in the courts.

[Smith808]

I'm getting so many mixed messages as to how approach trust building between the LGBT and black evangelical community. I hear..."Pr­otest against the real villains - the Mormons, but reach out to the black churches." But, aren't ALL supporters of marriage equality justified in marching to these churches, too? Or, is it racist to "bring all that drama" to the pulpit? What makes the black evangelical vote more amenable to the idea of marriage equality than the white one? And if you can answer this…you need to do some soul-searching of your own.
Isn't it also the black community's responsibility to reach out to its own LGBT members? Or, has its treatment toward its own gay brothers and sisters shown the rest of us we are not welcomed, ESPECIALLY if we're not black.
 Do gays and lesbians have to show proof of victimization and violence to "earn" the 70%? Here's a little teaser to brighten your mood: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people
Is the disparity in civil rights not enough? Is the tragedy and stigma of AIDS not enough? And hasn't AIDS outreach and funding, pushed forward by LGBT's, been one of the most powerful forms of outreach beyond our own community.­..especial­ly into those that would otherwise have ignored or ostracized these victims?
(CONTINUED)

[JudgeMoonbox]

"But, aren't ALL supporters of marriage equality justified in marching to these churches, too?"

I think we should make a distinction between leaders and followers here. The Black rank and file SHOULD have asked themselves if the ability to lie about your life makes discrimination acceptable, and if wrong is wrong only when it sets a record for wrongness.

The Black clergy should have asked itself if picking and choosing 8 obscure passages from the Book of God's Love that ratify their hatred only lets off the hook those White Supremacists who similarly abused the Bible to support their bigotry.

As we go up the ladder of the organization, the higher ups are more guilty; and only the Catholic Church can be compared to the actions of the Prophets of the Latter Day Saints.

[agro23]

Can anyone explain to me how the Mormon church and the Knights of Columbus should NOT have their tax-exempt status removed because of their overt support for Prop 8? Considering the amount of money they spent I think the ACLU or someone should urge the IRS to investigate them.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

As part of the 501(c)(3) code:

"Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying, constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.

"Under the substantial part test, an organization that conducts excessive lobbying in any taxable year may lose its tax-exempt status, resulting in all of its income being subject to tax. "

[Wascalwabbit]

First, I believe churches should have the right to defend their institutions and marraige is a religious institution, by definition, and 2000 years of history, uniting a man and a woman. The primary reason is sound. To keep the man around to support the children he fathers. Not really applicable to a gay union.
On the other hand, a civil ceremony is a 'state' procedure. People must get a marraige license from the 'state' to register either their religious or civil union for future legal considerations. This legal crossover seems to be where the confusion originates. Most of the people I spoke with have no objection to granting gays their legal rights under a civil ceremony. Therefore, the arguement that your rights are being denied is totally bogus. As ADVOCATE4ZPG said, it is the gays insistance on calling it "marraige" that is defeating them.
Yes the bible/church was wrong to support slavery, say the earth was flat and the center of the universe and many other instances. That does not mean you throw out the good with the bad.
Second is the "substantial part test", a vague term, useless in legal discussion unless defined. How much over what amount of time is substantial?
I don't know exactly what percentage any church contributed to lobbying against gay marraige but I would imagine it is actually a very small percentage of their total activities.

[JudgeMoonbox]

"First, I believe churches should have the right to defend their institutions "

So what threat did they honestly see?

"2000 years of history, uniting a man and a woman."

Does this discussion include the Mormons? They practiced polygamy a mere 118 years ago.

"The primary reason is sound. To keep the man around to support the children he fathers. Not really applicable to a gay union."

How about castrated men and postmenopausal women? If that was the issue, the churches would be saying, LOUDLY, that it applies to them too.

"Most of the people I spoke with have no objection to granting gays their legal rights under a civil ceremony. Therefore, the arguement that your rights are being denied is totally bogus. As ADVOCATE4ZPG said, it is the gays insistance on calling it "marraige" that is defeating them. "

Maybe your acquaintences are not a representative sample. Maybe they're lying to you. The fact is that the organizers of Prop H8 ran such a dishonest campaign it's a wonder you could trust them to name the right proposition. If you want to excuse the lying, you'll have to try a lot harder.

[kelly]

the biggest threat to marriage is dovorce. it's what ruined my marriage.

[nisha]

You said it, sister!

[joy316]

I agree, too bad we were not allowed to vote on making divorce so easy.

[FearlessFreep]

If they'd just outlaw divorce, all married couples would live happily ever after.

[Obama4change]

Don't you understand that the Republicans are pushing this "AA against gays theme" i in order to separate us? "In fact, the number of African-Americans voting for Prop. 8 will be significantly smaller than the number of Whites, Asians and Latinos that vote for the measure and probably cannot be responsible for the outcome." Note: 36% are Latinos, 12% are Asians an 6% are African Americans. You have to understand that a majority of Latinos and African Americans are very religious and this may be the biggest factor why Proposition 8 passed, but please stop blaming solely African Americans when in fact, Whites, Latinos and Asians all voted to narrowly pass Proposition 8. Republicans are livid that Barack Obama is their president and believe this may become a wedge to his presidency.

[zevonknew]

Dammit. Much of what I said in my post about the election in my post on this board, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/whitney-leigh/a-long-road-to-walk_b_141790.html,
you, John Ridley, said better.

You are, as usual, right as rain. We as African Americans have a clear and present duty to fight for gay and lesbian rights. But you do not do Obama any favors by letting him off the hook. He told blacks that it was okay to discriminate when he said, during the debate, that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. We all knew this was a lie that we were willing to ignore. But it was a lie that had consequences for folks.

[nisha]

It wasn't a lie. Whenever Obama has said that he considers marriage to be a bond between a man and a woman, he has also said he is in favor of civil unions for gay couples that confer all the practical privileges that marriage confers on heterosexual spouses.

Heterosexual couples often sign legal contracts before a religious wedding ceremony, and many heterosexual marriages are solemnized in court, with religious blessings conducted separately. I believe this remains possible for civil unions between gay couples, regardless of Proposition 8.

What bothers me, and what I suspect concerns many minority voters, is the notion that gay and interracial sexual relationships should be treated as equivalent, as a matter of liberal duty.

These are very different adult unions: One is biologically active in terms of reproduction and is undertaken within a socially traditional framework. The other is biologically inactive and societally progressive in stabilizing adult lives of gay people, creating a means of integration into mainstream, protected life choices and facilitating adoption.T­he two forms are broadly dissimilar in purpose and effect.

Treating gay and interracial marriage as equivalent means setting the default notion of marriage at both heterosexual and segregated --- a huge step backwards, given that miscegenation is widely accepted, indeed embodied in our new President Elect.

The larger and more far reaching problem with Proposition 8, as Obama has also pointed out, is that it prohibits actions based on earlier acknowledged freedoms, and sets a precedent for other prohibitive legislatio­n..

[FearlessFreep]

I"Whenever Obama has said that he considers marriage to be a bond between a man and a woman, he has also said he is in favor of civil unions for gay couples that confer all the practical privileges that marriage confers on heterosexual spouses."

It isn't a lie, it's self-contradiction.

[egal]

Perhaps it is the conception that sexual attraction to the same gender is a preference that makes it so easy for so many to view this as not a civil rights issue, as not oppressing people because of something outside of their control or their inborn characteristics. But, the very people who seem so leery of letting same-sex marriage become legal also seem to be those least likely to know or believe in the science that may provide any proof of gender preference being or not being choice.

Given that, what could really occur to change the minds of those opposing equal marriages? Many don't see this as a civil rights issue, whether because they believe sexual desire of the same gender to be a choice or for whatever other reasons, so the arguments about equality and civil rights fall upon deaf ears amongst those opposing same-sex marriages. Framing the argument that way is a losing battle when it comes to changing minds that see the argument as based on untruths.

Perhaps it would be more useful to discuss the incontrovertible facts of heterosexual marriage receiving no decreased importance but homosexual relations receiving a huge social acceptance that has a tangible positive impact on the couples' well-being and social and legal standings should same-sex marriages be permitted?

[MNmommy]

Thank you Mr. Ridley.

The passage of Prop 8 is an absolute abomination.

[Saynit]

I AM REALLY GETTING P***ED OFF ABOUT FOLKS BLAMING BLACK PEOPLE FOR THE PASSAGEOF PROP 8. I AM BLACK, I VOTED YES, MY SISTER IS GAY, I HANG OUT WITH HER AND HER FRIENDS QUITE OFTEN. I DON'T HATE ANYONE, I DON'T GO TO CHURCH EVERY SUNDAY, BUT I DO...AND LET ME SAY THIS, BELIEVE IN THE SCRIPTURE.­..AND IT DOES NOT SAY MAN AND MAN OR WOMAN AND WOMAN.....­.IT SAYS MAN AND WOMAN, PERIOD IT. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANYONE WITH ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE, GAY OR LESBIAN OR ANYTHING ELSE, NOR DO I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH CIVIL UNIONS. SO FOR THOSE OF YOU NO LONGER LIKE BLACK PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IN THE WORD OF JESUS CHRIST....­SO WHAT.

[JackNasty]

Tired of being blamed for voting to deny taxpaying gay couples equal protection under the law?

Then don't vote to eliminate the civil rights of others. It couldn't be simpler.

[davidnwpa09]

The fact that your sister is gay is important. How can you look her in the eye and tell her you frown on her having the same CIVIL rights you now enjoy? The color of your skin is irrelevant. What matters is that you tell your own kin that she is not entitled to the same rights you are, but she does have to pay the same taxes.

Furthermore, get off this stupid notion that being gay is a "different lifestyle.­" Lifestyles are chosen, and I prefer mine to be quite well off thank you. However I did not get what I want. Then again, I did not choose to be gay any more than you CHOSE to be straight.

Marriage is a civil rights issue, first and foremost. I am not angry at you for being black. I am angry at you for being ignorant.

[cuthbertallgood]

Being religious is a lifestyle. Being a relionist poser is another lifestyle. Religion is chosen.

[sophiemn]

There's a large gap in terms of what rights your sister has as the DP of another woman, versus marrying a man.

If you truly believe that it's about rights, not religion, it's important to do what you can to make civil unions different from marriage ONLY based on religion and in name and not in terms of whether her partner can immigrate to be with her, whether she has to pay more taxes and fees, whether she has to file a POA simply to have hospital visitation.

I think it's OK to listen to one another, and I don't think that an all-or-nothing approach in terms of calling this marriage makes sense in the real, practical, actual climate of the country.

I have no problem with the existence of religious institutions NOT recognizing same sex unions if there's also no problem with religious institutions that DO. But until civil unions really DO confer the same rights, you're advocating unequal protection under the law.

[cuthbertallgood]

The Scriptures also support slavery. Does that work for you as well?
Let me tell you about the hundreds of Scriptural Laws that govern the sexaul behavior of heterosexuals, hundreds of utterly ignored laws. Adultery and out of wedlock= death. How;s that doing in your holy world? No cheaters, no kids without two loving married parents?
Your Scriptures say eating pork is an offense worthy of excecution. How you doing with that one? Have you defiled yourself with lobster, or mixed dairy with meat? The Bible says death! And your hair style is an abonmination, your garden has mixed plantings, with is an abomination and is a death sentance.
In fact, you self proclaimer, I dare you in public to live by the rules of your so called 'faith' for even one month. You can not, nor would you wish to. Backtalking kids are to be stoned to death, and if the parents won't do it, the neighbors have to. That is what you believe?
You really think eating a cheeseburger or wearing a cotton poly blend is a sin worthy of death? You would really stone your own children for talking back? You believe that men own women, that it is ok to sell your daughter into slavery?
Jesus Christ never said a single word about gay people, not one. You claim he did, willing to lie about the very Son of Man...
.you are in my gay prayers, poor lost one.

[joy316]

I think it would do you well to do a true study of the bible ttb.orgg is an excellent place to start). Yes, it does use flawed people to illustrate the perils of sin and why we need a savior. That dear gay friend is the difference: all sinners deserve the consequences of their sin (death) but through Jesus Christ we are offered life. Please do not feel that your sin is different from any other sin that you list, nor should you assume any hate for gay people because of Prop 8. My prayer for you, dear person, is a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.