Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Proposition 8

I want to respond to Mona's retraction and to the Pam's House Blend post that she links to. Look, people who have the idea that the black vote was the proximate cause for the passage of Prop. 8 in California are wrong, but the salient point is that African-American votes substantially supported the ballot measure and that the black church, which remains at the social and political heart of black communties, specifically mobilized against it. The accusation is less that black Christians singularly scuttled gay marriage in California, but that it is especially tawdry, vicious, and unfair for a demographic that suffered commensurate discrimination within living memory to actively oppose the expansion of civil rights. There have long been historical antipathies between black activists and other minority groups, especially East Asian immigrants and their descendants, and there is a troubling tendency among some to reify the African-American experience, to make other discrimination incommensurable because only African-Americans experienced American slavery. The attitude has much in common with the insistence by many Jews that the Holocaust likewise represents a singular and inapproachable catastrophe, and that any historical comparison inherently denigrates its memory.

Homophobia may be less prevalent among black christians than among White evangelicals, but the historic discrimination and oppression of blacks in America places an additional moral burden on their sympathies, and requires them to do more to support equality for others.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hmm... Do I smell collectivist doody?
Group moral obligation?

LA Confidential Pantload said...

Being but a humble straight white guy, I'm hesitant to take issue with Monsieur's conclusions, but I would suggest that recognition of a moral burden would first require a different response to the black experience than most of the human race would have to such treatment. There may be a select few who are ennobled by undeserved suffering at the hands of others, but I believe the vast majority of people become coarsened and embittered. This, in turn, leads to a sense of entitlement based on victimhood, and a burning resentment of others who appear to be poaching on the same territory. This doesn't make it right - it isn't - but it does make it comprehensible.

Let's not forget the baleful influence of bullshit fundy religion here, either. I'm pretty sure it wasn't secular community leaders whipping people up into a frenzy over teh gay.

Anyway, my $.02.

Anonymous said...

they didn't have ballot initiatives on school integration. you have to imagine that if they had them today, a few states might actually resegregate their schools.
this is the sort of thing that courts are supposed to take care of. the idea of going to the electorate and checking, civil right by civil right, which ones out to be recognized is patently absurd.

Aaron said...

Do Jews have an "additional moral burden" not to put 1.2 million people inside razor wire? Sure. Do they give a biblical fig? Well, the editorial staff of Tikkun magazine might. Despite the fact that a large percentage of Jews do feel guilty about the whole occupation thing, it continues into its fortieth year because the institutions that feel a unique moral responsibility are not the same as the institutions that make policy.

I guess what I'm saying is, this is an effective rhetorical point, but the action is going to come from the Urban League--who already agree--and not from the reactionary preachers. It's the urban middle class who need to be front and center pushing this line, they're the people who should be guilt-tripped to be more vocal.

I mean, Christians probably have an "additional moral burden" not to feed people to lions and stuff. This consciousness doesn't seem to have made it into many sermons.

NutellaonToast said...

Ahem, us Jews don't think of the Holocaust as the singular catastrophe to end all catastrophe. We're still pissed about the fucking Babylonians, man.

Agi said...

can't we all just get along?

paul from the clue-by-four said...

For whatever reason, I am a straight person who has all his adult life had a passion.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, this post nonsense. Especially tawdry? Puh-leaze. Blacks as a group owe no special obligation to gays, and people who say so do in fact want to reify the black experience to imply that blacks need to be specially attuned to discrimination and such.

alansmithee said...

I will fight to the death to defend teh gay's right to be cynically exploited by the DNC just as much as teh blacks.

IOZ said...

Blacks as a group owe no special obligation to gays, and people who say so do in fact want to reify the black experience to imply that blacks need to be specially attuned to discrimination and such.

No. People who seek restitution and reparation for past discrimination--and rightly so--have an obligation to people who face similar discrimination now. People who fight still-extant prejudice have an obligation to greater sympathy for others doing the same. The issue isn't whether or not there's an obligation to actively campaign for gay marriage, but to justify actively mobilizing against legal equality for others.

cb said...

Agree with anon @ 1:18. Black haters are equally as reprehensible as white haters, not more.

But, as others have mentioned, aside from this one you have been on a huge roll lately.

cb said...

IOZ,
seeing your above comment, I have questions. Are you claiming there is a general moral obligation for discriminated-against minority groups to, at minimum, avoid opposing the causes of other discriminated-against minority groups? That seems pretty far out. Are blacks also obligated to not oppose the Equal Rights Amendment? Are they obligated to stand aside when atheists try to get "under God" pulled from the pledge? Is it only blacks that have this responsibility for other groups, or do feminists/gays/atheists/latinos/whatevers also have this moral obligation to avoid opposing each other?

paul from the clue-by-four said...

Is the ethic of reciprocity really "pretty far out?" I'm actually pulling my punch a bit because your post only makes sense to me read as arch sarcasm.

'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is certainly radical in practice, but hardly so in concept.

The Promiscuous Reader said...

Of course this works both ways. The racism among white gay men, who ought to know better for the same reason that straight black folks ought to know better, appalled me when I first encountered it in 1971, and it appalls me as it continues to this day. To say nothing of gay male misogyny...

Alaya said...

I'd argue this isn't so much about the black experience, per se, and the obligations thereof, but of the utterly inane, soul-twisting bullshit that is religion.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a non-Christian black person who doesn't fully support equal rights for gays. Hell, I bet you couldn't find many non-religious members of any race who don't. Let's hunt for the common denominator. Sure, some good people can find excuses for their good behavior in the bible, but more often than not it seems to justify their worst impulses.

But in general, yeah, aren't you the radical for calling out people on their hypocrisy. Far out, dude.

cb said...

I'm actually pulling my punch a bit because your post only makes sense to me read as arch sarcasm.
Let me have it, dude. I'm playing devil's advocate, sure, but I'm serious. And you might not want to use the word "reciprocity" b/c if blacks are supposed to be beholden to those who helped them get their civil rights, they "owe" a lot more to the black homo-hating evangelicals than they "owe" to the gay community. And I hate using this phrase, even in bullshit quotes, because they don't owe anybody shit.

Let me step back. I think EVERYONE should be on board with gay rights, and I'm pissed at people who aren't and who don't see the obvious parallels with anti-miscegenation laws. But there's a hell of a lot of them out there, and I think it's bullshit to single out African-American opposition as beyond the pale. In short, fuck the fucking Mormons.

Christopher said...

Pam links to a blogger named Alex Blaze who asks:

Some [other demographic] groups supported Prop 8 far more than African Americans did, which makes me wonder why we're focused so much on race instead of any of these factors.

I'd like to think that people like Pam would have a certain insight into this, because they are constantly asked questions like "why do you spend so much time complaining about sexism in the states when it's so much more awful in Saudi Arabia?" or "why are you complaining about George Bush suspending habeas corpus when Saddam did far worse?"

I think the answer to the question "why are you so focused on black people when other groups hate gays even more?" is going to be roughly the same as the answers to those other questions.

Cüneyt said...

Really, I'm not just mass-replying. IOZ, I really appreciate this post. I think it's sharp and I think it's a tough stand to declare. Of course, I'm being self-serving, because I also agree completely.

Christopher M. said...

I don't see why IOZ's getting grief for this post. It doesn't take a genius to see the parallels between gay marriage bans and Loving v. Virginia; hell, you could do a search-and-replace for most of the arguments for "preserving traditional marriage" and end up with exactly the same arguments used to justify anti-miscegenation laws (If we let the negroes marry our women, what comes next? Polygamy, man-on-dog, robot sex!). The notion that a group that's experienced various forms of oppression has a special obligation not to discriminate against others in the same manner isn't a novel one, either; it's made all the time in regards to Israeli treatment of Palestinians.

Cüneyt said...

I think it's because taking a stand is, in itself, loathed by many. It's like, in order to be a real critic, you can't positively assert a damn thing.

the_system said...

I simply find it amusing that it's so controversial to suggest that black folks, by actively agitating for their own civil rights to the point of demanding reparation, incur a moral obligation to not be fucking hypocrites by attempting to deny the exact same set of rights to other groups of people.

That such injunctions have no force against a black dude who, say, agrees in principle with the old miscegenation laws goes without saying. Or should, anyway.

The degree of pedantry some of you people seem to require before you can properly process an argument suggests that y'all either suck at reading or are just old fashioned cranks.

Oh well. Blog?

Anonymous said...

"I think it's because taking a stand is, in itself, loathed by many. It's like, in order to be a real critic, you can't positively assert a damn thing."

I'm assuming you're referring to the apathetic stance IOZ and his fanboys normally occupy when they're discussing everything else, ever.

Mr.Fundamental said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mr.Fundamental said...

taking a stand is creeping ever so slower in the passing lane in order to match the speed of the vehicle next to you in the inner lane so the bastard on your tail has a conniption and flips his shit because there is nowhere else to go.

Anonymous said...

So, IOZ's advocacy for fellow gaydom has nothing to do with self-interest, and everything to do with Anarchy. All right, then.

Cüneyt said...

Self-interest, anarchy... Why should there be a dichotomy? I just think it's nice when IOZ says something, and if that gets his fanboys or detractors or hangers-on or what-have-you all up in arms, all the better. Maybe it doesn't measure up to anything, but positive assertions are significant, and on this point, I also think he's right.

But maybe I'm just having a kneejerk reaction. Any time I hear "collectivist" flung around as an epithet, I usually pay closer attention to the person who's been red-baited.

Anonymous said...

Of course, he is right. But, that's quite besides the point. He makes it something of a habit to denigrate earnest do-gooders and their pet causes and, in general, to shit all over optimism and activism because, in his world view, such things are pointless. So, it's not at all surprising then that a number of posters are laughing and pointing at this surprisingly hypocritical turn, wherein it's IOZ and his bitches who are suddenly bemoaning the status quo and grieving bitter tears over their sad selves. Diddums.

Cüneyt said...

Suddenly bemoaning the status quo? Oh, anonymous, you almost had me!

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't say he bemoaned it before. Just regarded it with some degree of apathy or bemusement. Now, it concerns him. Watch him go!

Cüneyt said...

You see, I'd note that as an improvement, rather than a hypocrisy. Now if he abruptly turns around and shrugs at some other injustice, we might criticize him, but no sense in castigating him for taking the right action, or one of them.

Anonymous said...

He's seen the light then, has he? So, that recent post about workers having rights, shrug, yeah, I guess, means... what, exactly?

Anonymous said...

Since when is blogging about something ever "the right action"?