Proposition 8 Is Not About Black Homophobia

Rev. Irene Monroe –

Last week we saw democracy work with the election of Barack Obama as our country’s first African American president. My enslaved ancestors who built the White House could have never imagined that one of their progenies would one day occupy it.

But we also saw last week on the same day how democracy didn’t work for its LGBTQ citizens with the passing of Proposition 8, an amendment to the California Constitution eliminating marriage equality for same-sex couples after the California Supreme Court ruled in May that a “separate and unequal” system of domestic partnership for same-sex couples is not only blatantly discriminatory but it is also unconstitutional....

http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/11/11/proposition-8-is-not-about-black-homophobia/

Democracy- one person/one vote, ALWAYS works.

Would you rather have had it the other way around? Obama loses, and NO on Prop 8?

One or the other. I think not.

The next generation -- my teenage daughter's generation -- will push right past this gay-bashing, hate-mongering issue. If their parents can muster up the resolve to move past it as well, they'll think less of us.

You win some, and you lose some. (for now)

When she said democracy failed, she is correct in some respects, because, as she said the proposition was based on something "blatantly discriminatory but it is also unconstitutional." The one person/one vote shouldn't have even come into play because the proposal is unconstitutional. So now, it will have to be handled by the courts because of that situation. Democracy is not really "one person/one vote," but rather rule by the people and a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. That is where democracy failed in the introduction on the proposition as well as its subsequent passing.

It's wonderful that citizens have direct legislative access through the initiative process, but that's not really how it works.

Rather, well-funded interest groups circumvent the legislature by proposing meat-cleaver proposals that no deliberative body would pass. I can't imagine California's legislature passing anything like Prop 8 in a million years -- no matter how much money was getting shipped in from Utah.

However, I see what you are saying, and, in essence, it is not an example of democracy.

The voting rules were in place before the vote took place, and that's the end of it--for now.

"Democracy" is so much more than your definition of "one person/one vote." The US has been a 'democracy' for a long time and it wasn't always "one person/one vote."

Look, I don't know why this ballot initiative took place in the first place, nor do I know what the writer(s) of it had in mind but when it's left to a vote, a vote that could go one way or the other: the result speaks for itself, and should be binding-for now-and until the next time it comes up.

This, no matter what the initiative was about.

That's the "democracy" that was undertaken.

"Look, I don't know why this ballot initiative took place in the first place,..." Because, as the author said it was: "...blatantly discriminatory but it is also unconstitutional" and, therefore, a failure of democracy because it should have never reached the point of a vote.

"the result speaks for itself", yes, bigotry is acceptable to some. "Some animals are more equal than others." Does this sound like democracy?

...and I'm not saying you're right or wrong.

It was Churchill who said something like: democracy is the worst form of government, but it's better than all the others.

It'll work itself out over time.

We had a civil right stripped up from us in California, we're not just going to "live with it", we're going to fight it with every fiber of our being.

That would have to be as a result of not wishing to. All you have to do is read it. So that is one device that I call you on. It is clear that discrimination was in mind.
Let's talk about another thing CA was voted to do, Prop 187 from 1994. 58.8% of California voted to revoke all acess to social services, education, and health care to illegal immigrants, and require the police to demand proof of citizenship to 'suspect' individuals.
In that case, even the Feds could not bear the level of hate and discrimination Californians wanted to impose by force of law. It was overturned.
Were the Feds wrong there? California should still be turning bleeding kids out into the gutter for being Salvadoran? 'Cause the voters wanted to? Let 'em die, by majority choice?

If the simple majority, with one person/one vote, votes to kill all Jews, does that mean Democracy has "worked"?

Well, it has certainly recorded the wishes of the majority.

That doesn't make it just or moral or rational or...

Is this what you really meant?

We know how whites voted, to within a margin of error.

We know how Latinos voted, to within a margin of error.

And we know about "other".

We don't have a separate sampling for all the other groups. But we have an idea from how black women voted. We also have a decent idea, given demographics, of the percentage of blacks in the set of blacks, Asians, Native Americans, and the other groups included in "other".

So, ok, we don't know how all the others voted in detail. But assuming that all the Asians, Indians, etc., etc. voted unanimously for the measure, there's still a hefty vote by blacks. But then we've dumped maximum responsibility on other minority groups to place minimum responsibility on one group, and assumed the worst about them in order to assume the best about another, in an a priori fashion.

Your comments are not only factually incorrect: they provide no real insight into what is needed

When you claim "we have an idea how black women voted" but that there's no separate division by sex "for all the other groups," you show that either: (1) You didn't look at the poll and didn't read my comments, or (2) You're just incredibly dishonest. In either case, you're factually incorrect

In any case, there's no reason to think that skin-tone gives useful info -- and better data suggests it doesn't: see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7859493&mesg_id=7862269

This was a very interesting article. I really liked what she had to say and found it to be straight (queerly) to the point. The only place I would disagree:



No, the blame does fall on all those people (and others who voted to pass this), as well as the government. They are responsible for their vote. To pass the buck off to the government is to excuse the bigotry they used in casting their vote.

My favorite part was:



I will add they also need to work on their sexism and a few others of bigotry (including "lookism.")

Various societal and religious pressures may -- and certainly were -- pushing various groups to vote the way they did. Still, at some point, we all have to stand up for ourselves and vote and act our conscience.

Some of my gay and lesbian friends seem to be taking this in stride, perhaps either thinking that this is a long process -- perhaps decades-long -- or they really thought it would pass all along.

Many are taking this in stride, IMO, in appearance only. We have become so used to this crap, that while we acknowledge the sting, we all but expect it.

we've become used to swallowing whilst trying to keep moving forward. You realized you can't win them all, but to lose three pretty big ones in a single election cycle (with one huge one in the mix) does get a little hard to take.

Here, on the opposite coast, it's a lot easier not to assess blame, nor to point it in any particular direction. It's easier for us to see where massive amounts of fundycash coming in from out of state (which looks an awful lot like electioneering; suspiciously close to election-tampering from here) rather than a simple, singular explanation of racism or homophobia was to blame. I'm sure that such base fears or lesser-natures were influenced, but from here it looks like Californians were "had" from the outside.

That is what angers me. Not only have LGBTQ people have come to the brink of being denied a basic right, but Californians as a whole have lost their own self-determination as a sovereign state as we understand our Union is supposed to be. If I were a Californian -- any Californian -- I'd be a little pissed at Utah and its theocracy as a whole. Make no mistake; the Mormon church which threw a lion's share of the cash (along with other self-termed religious organizations) and the state government of Utah are nearly one in the same. If I were in the California State House or General Assembly (or whatever the governing body calls itself), I'd want to have some of the Utah GA on the carpet explaining exactly why it is that they felt the need to meddle in the affairs of another sovereign state.

That'd stir some bees in some bonnets.

Out here in NC, it will be a long time before we can even bring the subject up. A lot will depend on our success in California. A lot of that will depend on a solidarity of decent people who are willing to defeat Prop H8 in California first. Once that is defeated, then the rest of us may get our chance at the table. This isn't just a queer thing. This is an American thing. If ever we believed in the promise of equality, the necessity of human dignity, or the righteousness of protecting both of those precious qualities, then defeating Prop H8 is the right, moral, decent and American thing to do.

Hope to see some fellow DU'ers at the nationwide Demos on Saturday. My partner and I will be joining up with a group in NC to show solidarity with our LGBTQ "kinfolk" in California.

Just like in a fight, I really could care less what color the person is. If they are kicking dirt in my face, I want them to stop, pronto. I doubt very seriously their skin color matters if I got a face full of dirt and cannot even see anyhow.

It's about homophobia. This AA/GLBT "rift" that is getting hyped to hell and back is nonsense meant to separate the No on 8 side. It is a plot hatched by the Yes on 8 people who are trying to divide No on 8 allies of all colors, creeds, religions, etc.

The Yes on 8 supporters know that divided, we can't stand. If we can't stand, we can't fight. They are trying to keep us separated so they can take ALL our rights away in time.

To all of the people who are against Prop 8: Thank you. Please fight them and don't let them divide us. That is exactly what they are trying to do.

Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain have legal same-sex 'marriage'.

Other strong 'same sex union' nations affording the same as marriage are: Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Luxemburg, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK (England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland).

It really doesn't matter what cloak you wear, traditionalist, homophobe, etc, the truth is, much of the US is NO LONGER in line with the industrialized world. No one needs to point out what countries much of the US do align with nowadays.

So enjoy the bickering and rendering of clothes and wailing and lamenting... while the world revolves and evolves, the US will be pulled into the 21st.. kicking or screaming or otherwise.