An Open Letter on Prop 8: Enough with the Anti-Black Outrage

Somebody posted a link to this letter on my recent post about the racially characterized attacks against blacks by some in the gay community for what CNN exit polls said was a 70% vote in favor of Proposition 8.

The letter is from Kathryn Kolbert, President of People For the American Way Foundation. Among other things, it called the accusatory rhetoric of gay activists towards African Americans, "deeply wrong and offensive." And she added--as I stated in my original piece--it was counter productive. And since Ms. Kolbert (a HuffPo blogger) hasn't posted this yet, I took the liberty to. In the letter, she is eloquent and impassioned. But, more importantly, she's accurate about the facts. I just hope people put down the pitchforks long enough to listen.

The public letter, in its entirety, can be found here. But here is an excerpt.

Nov. 7 -- The past 72 hours have brought an extraordinary range of emotions -- great joy at the election of Barack Obama and defeat of John McCain, and sadness and anger at the passage of anti-gay initiatives in Florida, Arizona, Arkansas, and California. That sadness has turned to outrage at the speed with which some white gay activists began blaming African Americans -- sometimes in appallingly racist ways -- for the defeat of Proposition 8. This is inexcusable.

As a mother who has raised two children in a 30-year relationship with another woman, I fully understand the depth of hurt and anger at voters' rejection of our families' equality. 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.

Before we give Religious Right leaders more reasons to rejoice by deepening the divisions they have worked so hard to create between African Americans and the broader progressive community, let's be clear about who is responsible for gay couples in California losing the right to get married, and let's think strategically about a way forward that broadens and strengthens support for equality.

Here is the full letter.

Follow Raymond Leon Roker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/raymondroker

Comments

[HuffPoFan]

I'm very familiar with Mark Blumenthal and Nate Silver's sites and I agree that there are problems with exit polling. Exiting polling has improved in each election but the networks know better than predict a tight election based on exit polling because of the high margin of error. However the 70%-30% even with a 10% margin of error is not close.

Calif Prop 22 (defined marriage in statute law) passed in 2000 with a very small number of blacks voting in favor, so what happened between 2000 and 2008 in the black and other minority communities? Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee thinks it's first time voters (Obamamania).

http://www.sacbee.com/walters/story/1387029.html

[Sebastos]

Nate Silver has just posted "Prop 8 myths", a critique and refutation of the Dan Walters article:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html

Silver states flatly that "the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly." And the exit polls themselves, even if taken at face value, show the contrary. According to exit poll results, first-time voters went over 80% for Obama, but over 60% against Prop 8.

Given Silver's comments elsewhere on exit polls, I take his reliance on them here to be solely for the sake of argument; that is, even if exit polls are accepted at face value, the reasoning Walters bases on them is blatantly fallacious, and the conclusion he draws from them cannot be right. But we would be better off rejecting exit polls in the first place (and without them, there would be no reason to think that blacks were any more responsible for Prop 8 than any other segment of the population, so there would be nothing to explain). The problems with exit polls are too fundamental to be solved by widening the margin of error; their samples cannot be relied on to be random, among other things.

[Sebastos]

Even before Proposition 8 passed, we all knew that there was a certain amount of homophobia in the black community, and a certain amount of racism in the gay community. But these internal problems are clearly not the principal causes either of the passage of Proposition 8, or of the subsequent anti-black backlash. They are distracting us from focusing on the more significant, but less obvious, causes behind these regrettable phenomena: homophobia and "low information" in the larger community; the "child protection" hot-button gambit that acts as a multiplier on homophobia, just as "busing" used to act as a multiplier on racism; Mormon and Catholic money; inherently unscientific exit polls (and poorly executed ones at that) conducted and used by pollsters and mass media who know better, or should know better; and more.

Let's refocus, and leave fratricide to the Republicans who are agonizing over their electoral defeat. The circular firing squad is much more fun as a spectator sport.

[Strepsi]

I have mixed feelings about articles like this. The (largely gay white male-run) gay political movement MUST disavow and examine its racism. However, I have not seen a single article asking the African American community to examine its homophobia. Why is it we can accept the good stereotypes (my black friends are all sure they have rhythm and big d*cks, and my gay friends are sure they have style and can dance...), but no one wants to claim the negative cultural differences? The African American community is heavily evangelical and more homophobic than the white community. The gay community has a camp sensibility that can easily tip into racism. Let's eatch them both please! We all need to come together and realize, as Coretta Scott King did, that ALL civil rights are important, and that all communities are connected.

[Nikola Tesla]

As members of the mainstream, AAs are now part of the power structure; black culture cannot be immune from criticism.

If the Mormons can be criticized publicly by all races as bigots, so can the Black Church.

[sytgrl]

Sure, anybody can be criticized, but to call AAs a part of the power structure is terribly ignorant. Having an AA president doesn't change that. If you look over some of the articles covering this election, you will see that racism is alive and well in America.

P.S. There is no such thing as "The Black Church".

[Nikola Tesla]

if you want power, be prepared to be scrutinized and criticized.

BTW : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Church

[Nikola Tesla]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_church

my bad.

[daddigrace]

If the results of CNN's poll would have said that 70% of white Californians voted for Proposition 8, I suspect there would be disappointment but not the level of outrage in the white gay community that we've been reading about. It should not be dismissed that this voting block were primarily Hillary Clinton supporters who didn't sign on as Obama supporters until afterwards. HRC won the Democratic primaries in California.

I'm against proposition 8. But I wasn't invited to this meeting that supposed to have taken place where the upper-income white gay community met with this monolithic group of black voters, where a deal was made that since Hillary lost the nomination they would support OUR BLACK candidate if we voted no on 8.

Another thing. From now on I'm not going to call myself a "liberal" anymore. It doesn't mean anything except that you don't support the traditional gool-ole-boy power structure. As I've learned from this presidental election process, you can be racist, homophobic, intolerant to all Blacks, Arabs, and all people of the Islamic faith and still style yourself as being "liberal". That's BS.

[Highwind]

daddigrace, you took the words straight out of my mouth. People were making a lot of assumptions and they were proved wrong. Many people in this country aren't evolved on this issue at all. All the majority of us know is marriage between a man and woman. What did they expect to happen? That is just California, what do gays think would happen in say, the Southern states or elsewhere? The last time the public voted on a gay marriage ban in California, it passed 61%. This time it's 52%. It takes time for people to evolve on this issue. Let's not even get into the grip religion has on many people in this country.

[daddigrace]

If the results of CNN's poll would have said that 70% of white Californians voted for Proposition 8, I suspect there would be disappointment but not the level of outrage in the white gay community that we've been reading about. It should not be dismissed that this voting block were primarily Hillary Clinton supporters who didn't sign on as Obama supporters until afterwards. HRC won the Democratic primaries in California.

I'm against proposition 8. But I wasn't invited to this meeting that supposed to have taken place where the upper-income white gay community met with this monolithic group of black voters, where a deal was made that since Hillary lost the nomination they would support OUR BLACK candidate if we voted no on 8.

Another thing. From now on I'm not going to call myself a "liberal" anymore. It doesn't mean anything except that you don't support the traditional gool-ole-boy power structure. As I've learned from this presidental election process, you can be racist, homophobic, intolerant to all Blacks, Arabs, and all people of the Islamic faith and still style yourself as being "liberal". That's BS.

[Jellybelly]

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery (Mark 10:11-12).

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

[CEKChuck]

If we made the biblical literalists live up to all of the literal teachings of the Bible, then they would eventually die out. Either because they don't get married until they were sure, or because they would stone themselves to death when they committed adultery. Since a higher percentage of Christian Conservatives get divorced then other churchgoers, it would only be a matter of time. In fact, we could wipe most of them out in one fell swoop for not wearing cotton, eating shellfish, eating pork, or sleeping with their wives when they're menstruating (although I'll give them that one because I don't even want to know....).

[arvay]

I wish they would quote the description of eating shellfish as an "abominati­on."

[solomon27]

Romans 1:24-27

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

[CEKChuck]

Your comment only prove that Christians were bigots then, and some Christians (yes I mean you) are bigots now. Scientific evidence has proven there is nothing "against nature" about being gay. And how convenient of you to choose to follow that portion of the bible literally. There are plenty of learned and devout Christian writers who have lead the way in teaching how the Bible can be interpreted for our modern times. Try reading some Bishop Spong works.

[Dogmanger]

The problem lies not in the statistic but in the interpretation of that statistic. Many of you interpret the 70% that to mean that blacks are homophobic. When interpreting the phrase "african-american", many of you are focussing on the "african" and ignoring the "american". The issue here is not race but culture. It is not a black thing but an American thing. All persecuted populations turn to external means for hope and strength. Many blacks turned to the church and religion in times when they had no hope. When they needed strength. The power they found in the Church had many positive effects for the community at large and gave us many inspirational and heroic personalities, not the least of which was Dr MLK. But, like everything in life, the truth is grey. In a culture obsessed with heroes and heroic institutions, the negative aspects are oftentimes ignored. With all the goodness the church gave, there were also tenets and values held which are, by today's standards, considered non-progressive, conservative and downright wrong. One of these is the Church's stance on homosexuality. It is not a long bow to draw to say that the oppression of the african american population lead directly to a community by and large opposed to homosexuality. Perhaps the blame needs to be placed upon the horrific, shameful and oftentimes underestimated history of the United States, rather than on the people who sought solace, comfort and hope in imperfect institutions for much needed strength.

[Raymond Leon Roker - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you for reason and restraint. And thanks for the insight. I would only hope that those in the GBLT community who are bashing African Americans as hate mongers would take a deep breath and read commentary like yours. Your response and the letter published by Ms. Kolbert is exactly the type of helpful and mending dialogue needed. And, frankly, it's what will eventually have success.

[kobio]

A black straight man trying to calm fears of bigotry with white gays simply won't work. That would be like a white guy telling blacks not to be upset with whites for not wanting black kids in their schools. NOT going to work. Thank you for trying, but all you are really doing is stoking the reaction your trying to help end. Please allow us to heal ourselves. It will happen. We will have a voice from within rise up and stop this. It unfortunately cannot be you. Please try to let go, as you really are only a polarizing figure in this situation. Right?no. True? yes.

[Benton]

Blacks in California like blacks in many cities are one or two generations removed from the rural south. Much of what is characterized as black culture is southern rural culture. In reality, blacks are probably less hostile to homosexuality than whites from similar southern backgrounds. While there is homophobia in the black community it tends to be passive. I have never heard of blacks becoming animated or organized in an effort to "fight" homosexuality. As such, I think it would be relatively easy to change some attitudes about homsexuality within the black community. At this point with reports of the "N" bomb being dropped on random black folks by gay rights protestors, I think there might end up being some push back unless it is toned down.

[JayJonson]

I have never heard gay people use the N-word, and I seriously doubt that it has been used in any of the protests. I have, on the other hand, heard many times Blacks use the F-word. Threats of "push back" are not helpful.

[monty]

The real problem is organized Religion, not race.

[Robert2664]

As a GBM i'm really not suprised that my home state of Califorina gave rights to farm animals and took away rights from humanbeing­s.with that said no we can't just blame religion or race we need to blame our polititans and those who didn't have the guts or backbone to speakout on this.But rember this we voted them in we can also vote them out.

[DylanBD]

I'll just note that, while the exit poll number has been much mentioned since the election, it is not the beginning of this racebaiting line of argument. I have been reading all fall long on gay websites that the rise of Obama would spell doom for gay issues, as it would get black people to vote.

The effect of this line, of course, is not to win over socially conservative voters of any color, but to split the progressive coalition.

[overcat]

Here's a thought or two. Word is that the AA community has a higher proportion of churchgoers than the population as a whole. Stats suggest that a high proportion of AA voters voted yes on prop 8. Same is probably true of other religious voters. See a connection? It's about religious affiliation, not race. The color thing is a red herring. Dividing the yes on 8 voters into racial categories and singling one or the other race out for extra condemnation misses the more important point, I believe. Anti homosexual church influence is the issue, not race, not ethnicity, not how one group "should feel" but doesn't seem to feel.

As a friend in California pointed out to me, the state has made a degree of progress. The last time gay marriage was up for approval, it failed by 22%. Prop 8 only passed by 4%. Though not a good outcome, the progress is undeniable.

[Judyisacutie]

I see your point, but with respect to the black community, the gay community has not forged political alliances with its leadership, which has traditionally been rooted in its churches. Focusing and tearing down black churches will be translated in the black community as an attack on its foundation and organizational ability and it will have black people wondering if you're really just trying to dismantle their political structure. The only way around this conundrum is respectful dialogue and bridge-building between the communities.

[Highwind]

No it won't. All you have to do is go and talk to people. You can compromise with people on this issue. I've done it with people in my family, who are so religious that they don't vote. They believe God picks the best person to be our President. Yes, they are black and they still didn't vote in this election. I told them that they can believe marriage is between a man and woman but where a person spends their eternity when they die is none of anybody's business. I told them the public really shouldn't be voting on whether people have rights or not. The public didn't vote on the civil rights issue, so they shouldn't do it now. I also told them, if the public voted on whether blacks could vote then we probably wouldn't have voted until like the 70's. They disagreed with me on the definition of marriage, but agreed that it is none of their business who marries who. You won't know anything until you try.

[Strepsi]

I have to say, I am a bit tired already of the line that the gay community needs to "reach out" to the black community to teach them not to be bigots. How about the leaders of the black community, and the homophobic Reverends, stop being such hypocrites and teach it too? The gay marriage law was BASED ON INTER-RACIAL MARRIAGE PRECEDENT: THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ONE'S SPOUSE IS A RIGHT.

Are people saying African Americans need to be 'taught' not to hate other minorities? Is that not as condescending as simple blame?

[Yohomegirl]

With California's black population being less than 10 percent, it seems ridiculous to blame them. Surely the other 90% has more to do with the passing of Prop 8.

[SolarPowerGuy]

I hope you applied that same logic in the Bush/Nader/Gore election contest in 2000!

For it was just as true then as it is now.

[CEKChuck]

I do not agree with blaming anybody, but you have a complete misunderstanding of statistics. It doesn't matter what proportion of the black community is part of the population, it matters what proportion voted for the measure.

For every 100 people the voting was something like this:

For Prop 8 Against Prop 8

Caucasian 49 51
Asian 48 52
Latino/a 51 49
African American 70 30

My numbers are off the top of my head, but I know they are not that far off from what was reported. So it doesn't matter if 490,000 whites voted for it if 510,000 whites voted against it. The only thing the smaller number blacks as a part of the whole means is that if they had voted even remotely close to any of the other races this measure would have failed. That doesn't mean blame should be assigned to the black community, but it does underscore where the gay communities civil rights struggle lies.

[Nommo]

If, if, if. Your analysis is incomplete. What about the raw numbers. What percentage overall does the Black vote represent? It is like, way small. But those figures have already been presented, here and at Kos, particularly at Kos. So complete your research and you too will achieve a greater clarity on the whole matter. It will not necessarily abate your hate, but you can do so without the burden of incomplete info.

[haveasay]

I should shut up now, but I have to ask. I have two main things that don't really make sense to me.
what is wrong with drawing a parallel from other civil rights struggles to this one?
Why is Loving Vs. Virginia or inspiration from other leaders who championed civil rights 'appropriating' from one community as if we are stealing, diluting?
Do you believe that Dr. King meant, let's get some civil rights for ourselves and let the other folks worry about themselves? Is it a measure of who has suffered more? But if it is........ 46 years ago the laws changed to support civil rights for people of color.

And what's the stategy for the churches? One bigoted, rich, theocracy seeking idiot and apparently the mormon church were the heavy muscle but most of the bible based churches encouraged their folks to vote this in. No logic and thoughtfulness. They make up ridiculous arguements & all nod in agreement, because it fits their prejudice. Quote old testament to support prejudices, make up LIES about schools, children, loss of tax status, etc. which is BARING FALSE WITNESS. Shame on them.

That's what I am most frustrated by........ that a non-thinking, brain-washed group can self righteously vote away rights of another group and feel so good about themselves while they do it.

I was shocked to find people of color in that demographic for any reason. Wrong assumption.
Church trumps it all folks. do we have a strategy for that?

[HuffPoFan]

"Church trumps it all folks. Do we have a strategy for it?"

We have to find it. Prop 4 was defeated on Tuesday, how was that one beaten? That issue was on the ballot before and also lost so backers were trying it again. I'm sure the churches were supporters of Prop 4, how did the "No on 4" group beat them?

[Audreyce]

No on 4 had a very effective grassroots outreach going...No­body took anything for granted...­And in this case, the opposition wasn't as aggressive-
Most importantly, it was an inclusive campaign; White proponents didn't spend precious run up time predicting the negative impact of a huge black turnout for the presidential elections and devising ways of thwarting said turnout. Instead everyone against 4 seemingly worked cohesively to fight something they believed in - black & white-
The ensuing outrage from white gays suspiciously & ironically betrays a deeper and seemingly long held disdain/di­srespect/i­ntense dislike of blacks-
This even more evident from the rhetoric spewed when hurt feelings have been expressed with much blatant condescension towards blacks & where more restrained re: the benefactors - the mormon church/the catholic church etc.
Black friends have reported the most hateful treatment meted out since Nov. 5th.
Its funny - brings one back to the point they keep trying to make...the­y can't hide their skin colour, but the mormons and catholics can all move about, mingling unharrassed in relative anonimity - No tell tale signs until of course you stand outside their churches on sunday-

[Judyisacutie]

"what is wrong with drawing a parallel from other civil rights struggles to this one?"

Black people were hit in the head with bricks for trying to vote, drink at a fountain, use a public bathroom, etc. Thousands of black people were hung from trees. Their leaders were assassinated and houses fire bombed.

The dangers gay people face today are not even close to what black people faced during the civil rights movement, so the notion offends black people. If you don't approach the black community with adequate awe and respect for the civil rights movement, you've already started off on the wrong foot.

"And what's the stategy for the churches? One bigoted, rich, theocracy seeking idiot..." Black churches helped win the civil rights struggle. Disdain for churches in general gets translated in the black community into disrespect for black culture and history.

"...a non-thinking, brain-washed group can self righteously vote away rights of another group..." Name-calling will get you nowhere.

Blacks are very loyal to their allies. They have a history of marching arm in arm with Jews during the civil rights movement. There's a history of Dr. King and Cesar Chavez working together to help the poor of both communities. Same thing with the trade unions. Where have you seen LGBT groups marching with black people over racial profiling, or affordable housing, or anything?

The honest truth is that gay activists didn't campaign in the black community. Period.

[haveasay]

Judyisacutie
thank you for a thoughtful reply
I appreciate what you are saying
two things,
first, I do not disdain churches, I am a member of a church
it's the absolutist view in the right leaning churches that upsets me. There does not appear to be enough discernment, just absolutes.
I experience faith as calling us all to more
(and the bigoted rich theocracy seeking idiot is just a rich guy in LA who funded this, not a church.)
And because the churches in the black community were involved so heavily in social actions, I have thought these were in the discerning end of the spectrum.

second, the LGBT community was not so organized in 62 but as individuals we were marching with you
and yes, I think gay activists failed to reach out over this latest prop. This got funded late and didn't have enough organization behind it on the NO side.

I do not believe we should be blaming blacks now
it was just a wake up call for me and shocking since my assumptions were the groups who suffered so much and fought for civil rights would recognize prop 8 for the denial of civil rights that it is and vote against it.
So thank you for taking the time to explain more in response to my questions.
It helps me understand better.