98 piped up to ““Whaddya mean, we still hate blacks? We elected one for President, didn’t we?””

1. Dawn Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 11:07 am

   1 I never ever thought that the fact that America has elected a black man to the presidency would mean that this would be the end to racial problems. Frankly, that would be too naive. However, I do feel that this is a momentous step in the right direction for that country, a start in a place that, although there has been enormous progress for blacks, still has a huge amount of racism to contend with. I hope that the vast majority of Americans prove Ms Augustin is wrong in her beliefs. There’s still a long way to go, but hey, you’ve got to start somewhere, right? Barack Obama has a lot of work ahead of him, so he should be given all the support we (even those of us who live outside of the US) can give him.

2. Nora Roberts Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

   2 I think Augustin doesn’t really make much sense–and seems to be trying much too hard to find a downside. More, American just elected a really, really smart guy, one who can speak quite beautifully and in full, comprehensive sentences. Nice change there, too. Does that also have to be over-thought and questioned?

3. Gina Ardito Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

   3 Silly me. When I pulled the lever for Obama, I wasn’t thinking about race at all: I was thinking, *hope.*

4. Teddypig Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 2:03 pm

   4 I voted for Obama. Can we wait and let the man actually take office before deciding what it will mean or won’t mean? He could be the greatest thing since JFK or more ineffectual than Carter but can we let him start doing the job first?

5. Dalia Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

   5 I have heard so many people on radio call-in programs (I’ve particularly been listening to the BBC America radio feed so I can get a more international feel as they broadcast across the western hemisphere) talk about Obama as the ‘black president’ and I hope this focus on his skin colour dies with time. Some Republican supporters seem to believe that white voters chose Obama to ‘prove’ that they were not racist, and so, they say, all Obama has going for him, is that he’s black. They negate the message he sent and the change (we hope) that his administration will provide. I actually think that him being black (and Karen, let’s not fool ourselves, people can’t ‘see’ the white in him, so he’s black. As you said in various parts of your response to Augustin, this has been happening for years and isn’t going to change. You look black/mixed/minority, you are black/mixed/minority.) will not be an issue for him to deal with in the coming years. People who try to base arguments on his administration with his skin colour will go nowhere fast. The media will not touch it. However, the American and international media, and the world’s citizenry, will judge him at a higher level than all leaders past. His campaign was about change and now, people are sitting down in their living rooms expecting troops to be withdrawn next week, the economic recession to end by today, Americans to be beloved by the French and Islamic Fundamentalists to see the error of their ways after an Obama heart-to-heart. They await a political nirvana, an idea that Obama began with his talk of change, the media Hollywoodised in their support of him and the people solidified as belief in their desperation. Now Obama the President (I really don’t think his being a ‘black’ President is an issue any longer now that he’s been voted in) is the Superhero that may fail to save the innocent girl, helpless and hopeless hanging from a ledge somewhere. No matter that a ‘normal’ human wouldn’t have saved her – the Superhero is expected to do things others can’t. And when he fails, the outcry is tenfold. But all that said, I am positive about the future and yes, I think..I know…I hope…he and his advisors can handle anything thrown their way. Dalia (not American, but hey, I think this was the first World Election ) p.s. Another note about him being half-white, half-black. That’s a racial distinction but I suppose when ppl call him black they’re speaking culturally (for want of better word) in as much as his wife is ‘all’ black, and his children also ‘look’ black. Appearances mean everything do they not? Halle Berry is mixed, but she cried to be the first black actress to win an Oscar. To think of him as half-black, is I think, too academic a concept.

6. Angelia Sparrow Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

   6 Miss Augustin is overly optimistic, I fear. White racist, Christian Identity and Neo-Nazi groups have been reporting a surge in interest since the campaign began. As they did under Clinton, right-wing terrorist groups, including militias, are going to increase. Of course, I live in an area where “decent” people did join the Klan, because every white man joined the Klan. It was something you did, like going to church. And yes, I’ve been hearing racial slurs thrown about more freely than ever before. @Dalia, Halle Berry was the first black woman to win Best Actress. The first black to ever win an Oscar was Hattie McDaniel in 1940. The first black man to win was Sidney Portier in 1963′s The Lillies of the Field. And Dorothy Dandridge was first nominated for Best Actress in 1954. (fun trivia: The first licensed black pilot was a woman, Bessie Coleman, 1921)

7. Dalia Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

   7 Angelia, I know Halle was the first black woman to win Best Actress. When I said the generic Oscar, I meant for that title specifically. But my point wasn’t so much about what she won but as to how she identified herself – and how the media identified her.

8. Dorothy Mantooth Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

   8 Angelia, I’m pretty aure another black man won an Oscar before Hattie McDaniel, but it was for “Song of the South” so nobody talks about it anymore. I hope no one thought my comment was supposed to mean there is no racism in America (of course there is, just like everywhere else). Just that I heard it expressed on more than one place–not here–over the last few months that America was too racist to ever elect a black man. I’m just tired of people painting America and American with the same sweeping, tarnished, ugly brush.

9. queenbeetrainer Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

   9 Karen I was really glad when I saw this thread because I read through it the other day and was bothered, but really couldn’t articulate my thoughts. I did not vote for Obama because I don’t agree with many of his policies; on the other hand I didn’t like McCain that well either and did hold my nose, so to speak, when I voted for him. To me this election cycle has been really interesting. While the more conservative pundits were down playing race throughout the campaign, it did come up and was addressed on the more liberal side. Since the election I’ve heard comments similar to Dorothy’s several times. I’ve also heard comments like the following from ordiary citizens: “Obama is in and we’re finally going to get our due”, “…Now I don’t have to worry about paying for my house and for my gas”, “…how are all you Crackers feeling now…”. It leaves me thinking we’re all still in limbo. So here is what bothers me about the whole process now. When I looked at Obama as a candidate, the color of his skin was not a factor for me; neither was John McCain’s. I think I was very naive to believe that the majority of voters would be like minded. I expected Obama to win because I felt this was a referendum on GWB and the broken promises of the Republican Party.I expected the majority of the lower and middle class, no matter their color, to vote for Obama because he was able to articulate well what plans he did have and was very relatable – I saw him speak in Florida- and many, many people are hurting now. But when I see that 96% of black voters went for Obama I have to admit, right or wrong, it makes me wonder if it was purely his message that won them over or his color. Is there really only 4% of the black population that has a more conservative view? I find that hard to believe. Personally, I feel Obama will have a tough time ahead of him. I think that there are a lot of expectations of him that he won’t be able to meet; that no one would be able to meet. While I do think that his presidency will definitely be a positive in the progression of race issues, I think Obama will be somewhat constrained. It’s kind of like showing favoritism to your kid at a Girl Scout meeting when you’re the leader – you generally tend be tougher on your own kid. I think nepotism will be expected and not tolerated. I understand that there are people out there right now, with either of discussed viewpoints, that think they have this whole issue straight in their minds; they have their stance and will defend it to the end. But I think that there are a lot of people like myself who are wondering exactly where we stand and how we can move forward.

10. Karen Scott Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    10 QB Trainer, the only difference between this election and the last as far as I can tell re the blacks voting, is that more of them came out to vote. I’m pretty sure that I read somewhere that blacks have always traditionally voted for Democrats. When Clinton was elected, lots and lots of blacks voted for him, because he motivated them enough to want to vote. The same thing happened this time I believe. In the run up to the primaries I believe blacks were more inclined to go with Hillary, until Obama gave them another worthwhile candidate to consider. Some people will have voted for him purely because he’s black, but equally, he would have lost votes because of his colour. Fox News were trying to say earlier that he won this election because of the black vote, but aren’t blacks the minority in the US? For Obama to win this election, other people had to be mobilised enough to vote for him, surely?

11. Dalia Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 4:05 pm

    11 Hi QueenBee, My friend and I had a similar conversation a while back (before Obama was democratic nominee) and she was saying that she found it so stupid that black people were only voting for Obama ‘because he is black’. For a while, I agreed but then: ok, seriously – so what? It’s an ‘issue’ for them. One of relatibility, one of the comfort of believing that maybe, maybe, their issues will stand a better chance of being heard from someone who could ‘understand’ them, who perhaps has experienced what they have experienced. People who vote for ‘green’ parties – why do they do so? Does every aspect of a prime minister of president’s political life revolve around environmental issues? What is the competence of that green leader to deal with issues that fall outside their environmental ambit? And for many other black voters, it was a symbolic act. Perhaps they could not be arsed what Obama’s policies were (beyond the fact that he was Not George Bush – which, is the same thought many other voters had, as you said) but by voting for him they could tell their children, their grandchildren, and maybe most important, convince THEMSELVES that, ‘I can be what I want to be’, and ‘nothing is impossible’. If this is the issue in their lives and this is what Obama as President would bring them – why the hell not vote on that basis? I think it’s a damn bit more acceptable than NOT voting for him BECAUSE he is black – which would have occurred. Finally, I’m sure the math has been done already. The black vote did not win Obama the election. The race wasn’t that close. White, black, Latino, Asian, young, old, liberal, pension-depleted, jobless, war-fed-up, depressed Americans made Obama win the election. So any way, the ‘why’ of why black people voted as they did, is moot, in my opinion.

12. Tara Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 4:14 pm

    12 People always seem to forget that blacks have been voting for a long time now. We’ve had black candidates in the past. We didn’t vote for them because they WERE NOT QUALIFIED to lead our country. In Barack Obama, we have a qualified candidate – someone who speaks to the hopes and dreams of change for all Americans, not just black Americans. This is not the “sheep” mentality that people attribute to the black race as a whole (oh yes…they are all going to riot if Obama doesn’t win, if Obama wins they’ll become “uppity”, and yes – they voted for him just because he’s black). I would have voted for him if he were purple with red stripes. A lot has happened to people “just because they’re black”: slavery, hangings, burning crosses, prejudice,denial of basic rights and freedoms, dragging deaths…I could go on. It seems that all that is more acceptable than to vote for a black candidate just because we see ourselves reflected in his eyes? It’s amazing to me that people think that they can enslave and oppress an entire race of people for years and suddenly, because it’s over they think that blacks should just “move on”. After all, there isn’t one person alive now who remembers what it was like to be a slave. They’ve been free for years! How can you expect blacks to have the same conservative views as others? Of course, some do and I would not deny them the right. But blacks have always had to be liberal minded – how else do you rise above oppression and prejudice to demand fair treatment?

13. Karen Scott Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

    13 What Dalia said. Every darned word.

14. queenbeetrainer Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

    14 Karen, I think that I acknowledged your point, I just don’t think the numbers were as significant. But even though it was before my time, I could liken it to JFK’s election when Catholics who had never graced a polling place before came out in droves to vote. As far as the primaries go, in truth I haven’t really researched the numbers. It would be interesting to do that though because Hillary actually had a much more progressive health care plan than Obama did and health care was lumped right in with the economy issues, the main hot button issue of the election. While Obama may have lost votes because of his color, I don’t think that was as significant as you may think. Living in Florida, I’m surrounded by seniors. Many still hold those prejudices, unfortunately, but pulled that lever for Obama because they either were desperate for any type of change or because they were so pissed off at the Republican party. It’s interesting to me also that many of these same people who will froth at the mouth about being pro life, will ditch their moral ideologies for the benefit of their pocket book. I’m not trying to minimize in any way on going racial issues. On the other hand, there have been other peoples, including my own, who have been denegraded, persecuted and demoralized as well. I have this background, yet because I’m white I’m not qualified to have this conversation? Look, people should vote for who they want to; it’s their right. I personally like to inventory ALL the issues; i.e. I agree with Ralph Nader on a thing or two, but I din’t vote for him.

15. Dalia Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 4:50 pm

    15 Fox News were trying to say earlier that he won this election because of the black vote, but aren’t blacks the minority in the US? For Obama to win this election, other people had to be mobilised enough to vote for him, surely? Apparently, some activists against Prop 8 in California (if I was Californian, I’d be such an activist myself, the idea of adding something which denies rights to the Constitution seems ludicrous to me but I digress) are making a link between all the black voters for Obama who then turned around and voted, apparently in high numbers, in favour of Prop 8. They’re saying ‘shame on you, you should know better how it feels to be a second class citizen’. What I can’t figure out, is why there’s a focus on the black vote anyway. Like Obama winning the election and Prop 8 unfortunately being passed, the black vote is not enough to make or break anything. Well, I have to say, I don’t know the stats on this one but I’d be very surprised if the black vote really did make the difference.

16. queenbeetrainer Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 5:06 pm

    16 Dalia, the reason could be is that black voters are traditionally considered to be more conservative on social issues like abortion and marriage. In California’s case though, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the Hispanic vote is what pushed Prop 8 over. Here in Florida, Amendment 2 was unfortunately passed as well. Being in the Bible Belt, it was expected, but really a bummer for many of us because the language will effect the possibility of same sex domestic partnerships also which I don’t think the language in the California amendment does.

17. Karen Scott Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 5:25 pm

    17 QBT, the bottom line is, Obama appealed to a lot of people all over the world, not just Americans, and not just blacks. America saw what we saw in him and voted. I listened to many talk shows in this country, where many people were asked who they would prefer to see as president, and every single time, the overwhelming verdict was Obama.

18. Eve Vaughn Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

    18 I don’t believe Obama winning the election will automatically fix race relations in America. I think it may help getting a dialogue about race rolling where as it was too uncomfortable for people to speak about before. Nothing will change if we can’t even talk about it. But one thing that is really starting to annoy me is when people bring up the fact that 96% of the African Americans vote went to Obama, ‘so black people must be the racist ones’(at least that seems to be the implication) Blacks in general have always leaned democrat since FDR. Clinton received 82 and 84 percent of the black vote when he ran, Dukakis received 89, Gore got 95 and Kerry 93 all white candidates. There’s only a 1 percent difference between Gore and Obama, so really, this argument makes absolutely no sense when you look at the big picture.From what I’ve observed, the Republican party has not made that much effort to get the black vote in recent years. I didn’t hear not one single McCain ad on any R&B or Hip Hop radio stations, didn’t see any on BET or TV One, but I saw plenty of Obama ads on every station, heard plenty of them on Rock stations, country music stations. So it basically comes down to who reached out to who. About Prop 8, I’m really disappointed that it passed even though I don’t live in California. Obama actually spoke out against Prop 8. From what I understand about it from my friend who does live in California, there’s a very high evangelical population in California, and while I’m sure there were blacks who did vote for this, she told me there wasn’t as much advertising for NO as there was for Yes. Plus, many people didn’t vote on this law at all if you look at how many votes were cast pertaining to Pro 8 vs how many votes were cast for President. It’s ironic because I was talking to another friend who said she doesn’t believe in it because it’s against the bible. Oddly enough she’s in an interracial marriage and I pointed out to her that people used the bible in the fities and sixties to justify why she shouldn’t be with her husband. My stance on this issue is, if one of us is denied the rights that is our due, none of us are truly free. And the irony of ironies is Proposition 2 passed. How can we have compassion for animals when we don’t have that same compassion for our fellow man?

19. Emma Petersen Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 5:57 pm

    19 Angelia, I’m pretty aure another black man won an Oscar before Hattie McDaniel, but it was for “Song of the South” so nobody talks about it anymore. @ Dorothy Actually Gone With The Wind came out six years before Song of the South and the actor who played Uncle Remus won an “honorary Oscar” with Disney’s encouragement.

20. Emma Petersen Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

    20 How can we have compassion for animals when we don’t have that same compassion for our fellow man? Le sigh. That is a very good question.

21. Karen Scott Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

    21 What Eve said.

22. Kayleigh Jamison Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 6:29 pm

    22 the bottom line is, Obama appealed to a lot of people all over the world, not just Americans, and not just blacks. America saw what we saw in him and voted. Very true. Granted, when I attended one of his rallies back in September with two of my friends, we were by far the minority amidst the crowd as whites, which I actually thought was very cool, because it was awesome to see someone who could help people transcend the racial barrier that’s still, unfortunately, very prevalent here in the south. My god, someone threatened to kill me on Monday at the damn gas station for wearing an Obama hat. I grew up near Baltimore and D.C. Of course racism exists there (during my four years in southern Pennsylvania for college, I experienced a lot of prejudice because my boyfriend at the time was black) but it’s wildly different down here in the south. When I moved here two years ago, I was shocked, disheartened, and most of all, sad. I didn’t vote for Obama because he’s black. Honestly, race didn’t factor into my decision. To quote a friend of mine, I voted for HOPE. I voted for Obama because I believe in every single one of his policies and viewpoints. I voted for Obama because I’ve never been as excited about a presidential candidate before. That isn’t to say race should be off the table for discussion, nor is it to say that race should never be a part of defining Obama’s presidency. Let’s face it. Barack Obama is the first black president of the United States. That can’t be ignored, nor should it be. Do race relations still have miles to go in this country? Absolutely! But boundaries were shattered this week in a pretty big way. On Wednesday morning I was talking to one of my friends (and fellow law students), Marlene. Marlene is in her 40s, and is a single mom raising a 13-year-old boy and attending law school full time. Her husband passed away a few years ago. She’s also black. A black president, she said, was not something she expected to see in her lifetime. It’s even more poignant for her mother and older sisters (who are almost 20 years older than her), who grew up in the deep south and picked cotton for a living. Her grandparents were slaves. Marlene is the first member of her family to graduate high school, let alone attend college and then law school. “I just can’t get over the fact that,” she said, “in January when he is sworn in to the highest office of our country, he will be standing on steps that were built by slaves. By my ancestors, and his.” That about sums it up, I think. The only great thing about Obama’s presidency? No. But a great thing? Yes.

23. MD Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 6:42 pm

    23 This Augustin person brings a whole new talent to seeing the glass half-empty. What a sad attitude to go through life with.

24. AztecLady Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

    24 I think that a lot of people–from all walks of life–feel perfectly at ease with denying other people (in this case, gays) their rights because they can and do de-personalize the other group. I wonder how many voters with young children who felt oh so righteous “protecting” marriage will feel any guilt if one or more of their children turn out to be gay. And–yes, I’m in a pessimistic mood, apologies in advance–I wonder how many of them will rather shun their children than acknowledge the harm they did them by trying to take away a civil right from them. I agree with K S Augustin that the press–and a good chunk of the public–will be relentlessly looking for ways to link any and all missteps to Obama’s race. Just as they would have linked any and all missteps of a Hillary Clinton president to her gender. After all, exploiting preconceptions and prejudices sells, doesn’t it?

25. Teddypig Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 8:54 pm

    25 the black vote is not enough to make or break anything. Well, I have to say, I don’t know the stats on this one but I’d be very surprised if the black vote really did make the difference. The stats are available and reported on the major news services. 70% of black voters voted for Prop 8. no other group was as over whelmingly for taking the rights away from another minority who won those rights in court. It’s sad, but yes it did make a difference.

26. Roslyn Holcomb Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 9:08 pm

    26 Actually Teddy, the biggest minority group to be in favor of Prop 8 was Mormons. After all, they put $22 million behind it, and were partly responsible for the initiative in the first place. Certainly they are a much-maligned and discriminated against minority. Interesting that instead of pointing a finger at the folks who started this shit in the first place it’s all too easy to blame the Negroes. It’s my understanding that the Pro 8 folk lobbied minority groups heavily. The No 8 people did not. I suspect there was a certain amount of complacency in the GLBT community about this initiative and a failure to organize. Rather than reflecting on their own errors they’re acting like the McCain campaign and pointing fingers. Let us not forget that fully 50% of white people, definitely the largest group of people in the state voted in favor of Eight. When you choose to attack minority groups for their bigotry instead of the whites who initiated the thing in the first goddamned place you are definitely exerting a level of privilege that’s sickening, especially when you’re also claiming victimhood in the same breath. Bottom line is, this bit of fucknuttery should never have been a ballot initiative in the first place. You can’t vote people’s Fourteenth Amendment rights away.

27. GrowlyCub Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    27 A couple of questions: I wonder if Ms. Augustin would have considered a vote for Hillary Clinton (if she had been the candidate and won) as a step back for women in this country? If not, why not, and if so, I’d love to see an explanation. Secondly, I recently saw a program advertised on Logo that defined the term ‘on the low down’ as something specific to black males, which surprised me quite a bit. But I’ve also been told by a couple of different (black) folks that a non-negligible number of black males have homosexual sex on a fairly regular basis while in a hetero relationship and describing themselves as non-gay. Could the folks in the know clue me in whether that’s a correct impression, total baloney, malicious gossip? And if it’s true, what would that mean in the face of the fact that blacks may have significantly and negatively influenced the outcome of Prop 8.

28. Emma Petersen Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

    28 @ Teddypig – Sometimes you don’t know you’ve been set up until you feel the noose tighten, and the trap door tremble. But by then it’s too late. Call me paranoid but I refuse to take away any persons rights because if their rights can be so easily revoked, so can mine. And as for the amount of blacks that voted for Prop 8, we can blame religion. When I spoke with friends that was the reason I was given. Which is the height of hypocrisy because if following the bible was the reason, wouldn’t we follow EVERYTHING in the bible? Seriously. How many of the blacks that voted yes on 8 have premarital sex? How many of them try to keep up with the Jones’? How many of them blaspheme? A sin is a sin, children. And it saddens me that we as a people would vote to take away rights from ANYONE when we ourselves had had the same done to us for so long.

29. L.E. Bryce Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 9:41 pm

    29 Last night I talked with a Jewish lady who voted for Prop 8 on the grounds that “marriage is for having kids,” and didn’t seem to get it that A. most people marry for love, not procreation (gee, how many heterosexual couples choose not to have kids? Are they not married because they’re not popping out babies and doing their part to drive the population up to 7 billion?), and B. her rhetoric, that “oh, well, the gays can have their ceremony, just not the same one,” is basically like saying, “Oh, those black people don’t need to use the same water fountain as the rest of us.” Separate yet equal was overturned in the Fifties as being unconstitutional. Why can’t the close-minded bigots who voted for Prop 8 see they’re doing exactly the same thing here? This isn’t about traditional marriage, but equal rights. Unfortunately, she didn’t seem to see any problem with Sarah Palin being an utter airhead either, so nothing I said got through.

30. Ebony Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    30 In our country–if you have a drop of Black blood in you–regardless of your skin color—they consider you Black…so if you have a drop of Black blood in you and you’re of a darker hue–you will definately be grouped as a Black American. Always been like that—no matter if you live in the north or the south.

31. Throwmearope Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 9:46 pm

    31 Overheard in hallway just now (2 old white guys–i.e. even older than me): “Well, at least now we can blame Obama for everything.” “That’s ok, he hasn’t done one damn thing yet to help this country.” I wanted to point out that a) he was only elected 3 short days ago, b) he won’t be sworn in for a couple of months, c) he met with a bunch of intelligent economists already today, putting him way ahead of Bush, and d) it took Bush 8 years to fuck the duck that used to be America, it may take Obama a while or two to fix his messes. But rednecks will be rednecks and sense and reason have limited to no appeal for them. So why waste the breath.

32. Throwmearope Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    32 his messes = Bush’s messes, sorry.

33. Kayleigh Jamison Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    33 Down here in Florida we were battling against Amendment 2, the “Marriage Protection Act.” On its surface, and on a basic level, yes, the Amendment outlawed gay marriage by defining marriage in the Florida Constitution as between a man and a woman. But here’s what most people didn’t know: 1. Gay marriage is already against the law in Florida. Not once, not twice, but FOUR times over. Whether Amendment 2 passed or failed, there would be no gay marriage in this state. 2. The language of the Amendment affects ALL domestic partnerships, gay or heterosexual. This means no health benefits for civil union partnerships of any sexual orientation. Want to go visit the father of your three kids and boyfriend of 15 years in the hospital? If you’re not married, forget about it. You can’t. 3. Several counties in Florida have DPRs, Domestic Partnership Registries. Over half of the couples on the DPRs are heterosexual. DPRs are now no more. So who does Amendment 2 affect most? Believe it or not, senior citizens. Ones who don’t want to get married a second (or third or fourth) time. And it didn’t matter how many times I explained this on Tuesday at the polls, the conservatives were always right there to proclaim that this was all gay propaganda, and that if Amendment 2 failed, “the gays would take over the state. It would be a state of gays.” *grumbles*

34. Ebony Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

    34 The majority of the Blacks I know voted for him–not just because he was Black, but because he was the best candidate out of the two choices. Don’t get me wrong, him being Black didn’t hurt him in our eyes either. There are several reasons why I’m glad and cried that Obama won: Of course the obvious, because he’s our first African-American president, but also because people who aren’t Black didn’t look at the color of his skin; they looked past his skin color and looked at what he stood for. To see Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s dream manifest in 2008 is amazing and as an American, I’m proud. It gives me hope that some of the ignorance displayed previously will soon die out–its still there–but will die out completely until we won’t have to say – White American, Black American–we can all just say American (no matter the hue of the skin).

35. AztecLady Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 9:55 pm

    35 “Marriage is for having kids” Gee, so people who CAN’T have children are not married? Or perhaps folks shouldn’t be allowed to marry until they’ve popped one healthy kid–you know, to protect the institution of marriage as a breeding program. /rant

36. GrowlyCub Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    36 Yeah, that’s like the guy who petted me on the head (when I was 20 and mentioned that I would not have children) and asked me what my life was good for if I didn’t have children… I just wish people would leave other people alone. If they get off on having a heterosexual partner and having kids, great, but why force that down everybody else’s throat… I just don’t get that attitude.

37. Teddypig Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 10:17 pm

    37 Roslyn Holcomb When you choose to attack minority groups for their bigotry instead of the whites who initiated the thing in the first goddamned place you are definitely exerting a level of privilege that’s sickening, LOS ANGELES, Oct. 22 — One of the highest ranking African American religious leaders in California and in the country has endorsed YES on Prop 8. Apostle Frederick K.C. Price of the influential Crenshaw Christian Center in Los Angeles hosted and led off a press conference with dozens of local African American religious leaders yesterday saying that “we shouldn’t do anything to jeopardize the future of our family and our children.” The press conference opened with 50 African American and Latino pastors from greater Los Angeles, all standing up individually to express their support for YES on Proposition 8. Joining Dr. Price in supporting YES on Prop 8 was Dr. Beverly “Vam” Crawford, Senior Pastor of Bible Enrichment Fellowship Int’l Church, and Bishop Frank Stewart of the Zoe Christian Fellowship in Los Angeles. Dr. Crawford reminded the two hundred supporters gathered for the event that “we must do what is right and stand for our children. We cannot afford to let this affect our babies in our schools.”

38. Teddypig Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 10:35 pm

    38 Emma, You are so right. I have dealt with harsh times. I was in San Francisco when Harvey Milk was assassinated. I think I rooted for the drag queens rioting in the streets that night burning police cars. It was an amazing sight watching guys do that in heels. I watched as my friends die in the 80′s as Reagan ignored us. Yes at every corner it all came down to religion being the root of justifying the hate and prejudice. You know though, as much prejudice as I have had shoved in my face. I would not want to be in the same shoes of any of my friends who is not only gay but also African American. They not only have to deal with being shit on by the system but then they go home and have families shit on them 10 times worse than mine ever have. It is heart breaking when you hear them try desperately to have some type of relationship with so much hate involved.

39. AztecLady Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 10:37 pm

    39 Grrrrrrr……! How, in the name of all that is rational, recognizing other people’s rights without taking away from mine/yours, harms any effin’ body? *head desk*

40. Emma Petersen Posted: Nov 7th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

    40 @ Teddypig – Le sigh. I would like to think there are quite a few Black families who love and support ALL of their family members regardless of their sexual preferences, but I’ve seen and heard things that have proven me wrong.

41. Teddypig Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 12:12 am

    41 I don’t get it Emma. How could any mother choose their beliefs over supporting the rights of their own children? My own mother told me she wished I had never been born. She eventually got over herself but some of these folks don’t. This is why Gay men were so devastated in the 80′s. So many of our “chosen” family died and for many of us they were the only family we had.

42. L.E. Bryce Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 12:54 am

    42 If the religious nutcases–you know, the ones who put the mental in fundamental–want to interfere in politics, let them stop screaming not-for-profit and start paying taxes like everybody else. Somebody seems not to have pointed out to them that in America Church and State are separate entities, and that not everybody wants to pray in school (hey, some of us are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc., you know) or pop out 9 kids for the glory of the Lord. I’ve had women tell me with a straight face that I’m not a real woman because I’m not married and don’t have kids. And with a perfectly straight face I’ve coolly informed them that A. at 6.5 billion people already, the human race is not threatened with extinction, that B. my hormones confirm each month the fact that, yes, I am still female, and that C. my reproductive choices are none of their damned business. Furthermore, if they care to know, I will be going home to watch some hot gay porn, fire up the vibrator, and not care that at 37 I’m still single and likely to remain that way. And if that doesn’t get their ultra-conservative panties in a wad, I don’t know what does.

43. Roslyn Holcomb Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 1:08 am

    43 TeddyPig, this campaign was all about financing. I don’t doubt that many black churches supported it, but they didn’t finance it, and they certainly didn’t get it put on the ballot. Those are the people that are the problem. And if there was no outreach to minority communities by the NO people, I can’t imagine why they would expect a different result. I saw Sherry Sheperd say on The View this morning that pastors could be arrested for preaching against homosexuality if 8 was approved. Now, I’m not in CA, but I assume that this is not so, but if you didn’t have people in the community combatting this propaganda then it’s not surprising that it passed. I too experienced hard times in the 80s watching my friends die from AIDS as well. I sometimes think I am still traumatized by those memories. My own goddaughter is at odds with her mother (my best friend) over her coming out. I know how painful this can be. But the gay community has got to understand that the black church is at the core of our community. Our liberation, indeed our very existence is sourced there. Most of our leaders were ministers. Anything that seems to threaten the black church (like preachers being arrested for preaching against homosexuality) will be met with firm resistance. It’s important to reach out to the black community with an understanding of how this law is unconstitutional and unfair, but maligning the black church will be welcome. And whatever you do, don’t compare your struggle as a gay person, with our struggles as black people. Some blacks understand your viewpoint, but for many it is seen as yet another attempt by privileged whites to co-opt something very important to us.

44. Monica Kaye Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 1:12 am

    44 I think that the best part of this discussion, and really the election of President-Elect Obama, is that we are now having a more open dialogue, about race, about sexuality. There is no doubt that there is racism in this country and that it will continue despite the election of an African-American president. But to deny it or to let it fester in the dark rather than bring it to light and tackling it straight on is what allows it to continue to infect the fabric of our nation. And to be honest, I have not spoken to one person who voted for Obama ‘because he was Black.’ If that were true, why didn’t Jesse Jackson succeed in his bid for the presidency? And if anyone did, so what? I always vote for a Democrat because I’m a Democrat and I believe that they will best serve my interest. What does that make me? However, that wasn’t my reason. I voted for President-elect Obama BECAUSE he was Barack Obama. He alone embodies my hope for this country and my belief that we can once again be a great nation. Barack Obama represents the kind pf politician that I always believed was out there but never found. A honest, intelligent, worthy person who truly has the best interest of the country in mind rather than some self-identified agenda. And it was Mr. Obama who electrified a nation. Hell, the entire world. Has any other politician in your memory ever done that? I remember seeing his speech at the DNC in 2004 and being glued to my seat. I felt as though I were in the presence of a great man. I remember thinking “whoa!’ I was mesmerized by him and I talked about him for days afterwards. I knew deep in my heart that he was destined to do amazing things. I feel that same way every time I hear him speak. I am filled with a seemingly endless supply of peace and hope and excitement. I voted for Barack Obama. For the first time in my voting life, I don’t feel as if I chose the lesser of two evils. I chose the best man for the job. Period. To say that people only voted for him because he was African-American discounts what he truly means for this nation and potentially the world. Is that another, subtler form of racism? I don’t know, but I do know that it is diminishing and unnecessary and at odds with the direction that Obama is looking to steer this country. There are a myriad of reasons that the majority of Americans voted for Obama, but I bet chief among them was that they felt that he was the most qualified to lead us during these turbulent times. As for Prop 8, I am saddened that it didn’t pass. My father doesn’t approve of homosexuality (not that it’s his place to approve or disapprove) but he has said that Gay people should be allowed to marry because it’s their right and it’s none of our business what two consenting adults do within the privacy of their bedroom. And the sad truth is that it is religion, more so than race, that played the biggest role in the passing of this law. What is really sad to me is the failure of many Black people to see the plight of homosexuals as a civil rights issue. How is it not okay to discriminate against someone based on the color of their skin but perfectly fine to do so on the basis of whom they choose to love? How about we go back to the days when Blacks weren’t allowed to marry Whites? Isn’t that the same thing? It makes a difference because they’re a man and a woman rather than two men or two woman? I don’t get it. We have fought so hard for the freedoms that we as Black people enjoy and yet we turn a blind eye or worse participate in the stripping away the personal freedoms of another group of people regardless of the reasons. Sad.

45. Anon76 Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 1:21 am

    45 I saw the ping back from this blogger rather quickly. On reading those opinions, I signed off the net for a while. I was rather ticked, to say the least. If we want to puff up about racism, let’s talk about the “Americans are twits” mode rampant everywhere. I did not vote for Obama because of his color or lack there of. I listened and voted on positions put out I felt important. And truth be told, unless you are a young voter, you KNOW that not every promise a candidate makes will be achieved, even in an eight year tenure. It’s simply impossible. So I consider that if a person does 1/3 of what they set forth becomes a reality, then that is a good record. No, I’m not a naysayer, I’m a realist. And a realist who is sickened by the flack flying around right now. If you really want to talk about race, consider this: Obama was not white enough, nor black enough, that he should have taken this election. Hmmm, must have been some other reason he sparked our hearts and minds.

46. Eve Vaughn Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 1:33 am

    46 I think one of the reasons why Proposition 8 again ties in to what I said before. It’s who reached out to who. My understanding of this from a talking to people in Cali and researching this issue is the black and latino community were heavily targeted by the Yes side while barely by the NO side. The YES side clearly had the momentum with the money and the church backing them. Not to mention the misleading ads. Yes, it’s sad that a group who has been discriminated against would support this law. But pointing the finger in this issue is really counterproductive. No one group, black, white, latino, asian, gay or straight is without their prejudices. Unfortunetly, what these last few days have taught me is that we have come so far but we still have a long way to go and nothing will truly change until more of us realize we’re all in this together. To quote one of my favorite sayings(it’s about the rise of the Nazi Party but still pretty powerful)… “In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

47. Emma Petersen Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 2:26 am

    47 @ Teddypig – My mom had some serious hippy tendencies. She loved everyone and encouraged me to do the same. like preachers being arrested for preaching against homosexuality No disrespect intended Rosalyn, but I have to call shenanigans on that one. Even IF black preachers were told this outright blatant lie, they know how to read. They could have done the research but instead chose to fall back on the Old Testament’s Lev 18:22. (At least it is Lev. 18:22 in the Catholic bible, I don’t know if the other versions are the same) And whatever you do, don’t compare your struggle as a gay person, with our struggles as black people. See I don’t get this. Probably will never get this. An atrocity is an atrocity no matter who it has been committed against and as a people who have suffered plenty you’d think we’d be the first to stand up for others.

48. Teddypig Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 3:07 am

    48 And whatever you do, don’t compare your struggle as a gay person, with our struggles as black people. I have always thought that Gay Black Men have it much harder from knowing them and hearing about their experiences. I think this vote and what the polls showed prove that has not changed. Can you imagine how utterly betrayed they must feel seeing that vote?

49. Indida Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 3:40 am

    49 So we are blaming black people for Prop 8 passing? Nice. How many total votes for Prop 8? How many of them were from black voters? Now, I will just take my black ass back to the quiet corner.

50. Eve Vaughn Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 4:11 am

    50 No disrespect intended Rosalyn, but I have to call shenanigans on that one. Even IF black preachers were told this outright blatant lie, they know how to read. They could have done the research but instead chose to fall back on the Old Testament’s Lev 18:22. (At least it is Lev. 18:22 in the Catholic bible, I don’t know if the other versions are the same) Here is some of the propaganda for the YES side. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-jc4ujp9Ok http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gE5oOuf_8A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIvS7redS8M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4tTRvmgZKM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4nqtDrJI7A These ads were targeted toward the black and latino community. And when there is little to no information about the other side, you only have so much to go on. Unfortunately the YES side had the money to bombard people with propaganda. Keep in mind there was already gay marriage in the state prior to this vote and everything was fine, but then religion somehow got involved. One thing people are very sensitive about,is their faith and this was presented in a way that if this law didn’t pass it would affect the way they could worship. And once someone believes their faith is being threatened, it’s pretty hard to sway them to the other side. Honestly this should never have been on the ballot in the first place as there’s supposed to be a seperation of church and state. Hopefully this will be challenged sucessfully.

51. Roslyn Holcomb Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 5:56 am

    51 Emma, I’m not in CA, I can only repeat what Sherri Shepherd said because I heard it with my own ears. I believe for sure that she believes that. And if she believes it goodness knows how many other people do. Many people are not going to be bothered to do research. If their pastor is in the pulpit telling them that he can be arrested for preaching against homosexuality they’re going to take that as truth. That’s why it’s crucial that the No 8 people do the outreach to let people know that it’s propaganda. As for the comparison of the struggle I don’t feel this way, but I understand where they’re coming from. Black people have always had to deal with privileged whites co-opting that which is ours. The notion that they would now even take our movement, our liberation is outside of enough. Regardless of why they feel that way, the fact is that they do. The question is, do you want to be right, or do you want to get rid of this appalling amendment? Interestingly enough Teddypig, I haven’t seen any blog posts from gay black men one way or another. I definitely know that they are in a unique position of not feeling fully integrated into the gay community and fearing the loss of the black community. It must be scary as hell to literally be in a metaphorical No (Gay) Man’s Land.

52. Emma Petersen Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 6:46 am

    52 @ Indida – No one is blaming black people for Prop 8 for passing. (Yet. J/K) And seriously, hasn’t anyone ever told you no one puts baby in the corner? Ignore me. I have a bad habit of randomly quoting movies. The past week it was The Color Purple. What I’m saying is that we need to do better. You can’t tell me as a black woman you’ve never witnessed the irrational fear some blacks have against homosexuality. @ Roslyn – I’m not trying to be mean but Ms. Shepherd doesn’t strike me as not the brightest bulb on the tree. I love our people, seriously I do but sometimes…We can be a tad bit hypocritical. For example, my church going, born again, shouting, dancing in the aisles friend we will call C*. C* informed us the other day she voted yes on Prop 8 because homosexuality is a sin. When asked her about all the fornicating she does (and yes, she does get around) she had nothing to say. Isn’t a sin a sin? And seriously, no one should ever take what a man (woman) says as the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth. That pulpit doesn’t make the man (woman) behind it perfect, he’s still very human and still very prone to the human condition.

53. Ebony Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 6:47 am

    53 @ GrowlyCub, I think you mean “on the down low.” Growly it’s a combination of total baloney and malicious gossip. Don’t get me wrong, yes there are Black men who are bi-sexual, gay or on the down low but it’s not an epidemic the way it seems those particular people made it seem. @ Teddypig/Emma, I think all of us know at least one or a few gay people; whether we encounter them at work or in our families. All of us sin and no one sin is better or worse than the other. In the eyes of God–sin is sin. In the bible, homosexuality is a sin. As far as why the outcome of Prop 8 resulted the way it did, people were probably looking at it from a biblical standpoint and voted accordingly. It did not have to be because they were prejudice against someone who is gay. Marriage, the way God intended, is between a man and a woman and because of that reason, people are again holding on to biblical principals. They are not discriminating, they just don’t agree with the lifestyle. A lot of times some people try to compare being gay to being Black. No comparison. Being born Black is not a sin.

54. Ebony Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 6:59 am

    54 How about we go back to the days when Blacks weren’t allowed to marry Whites? Isn’t that the same thing? @Monica Kaye–no it’s not the same thing. It’s interesting how people try to compare being gay to being born Black—again–no comparison–they are TWO totally different things.

55. Emma Petersen Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 7:03 am

    55 @ Ebony – Okay. Let’s say homosexuality is a sin. Ummm when are we going start punishing everyone else for their sins? In the bible fornication is a sin. But every day in this country a child is born out of wedlock. I can guarantee you if someone tried to pass a law to abolish the rights of single parents, everyone would be up in arms. But a sin is a sin. Let’s be fair. If we punish one let’s punish all.

56. Jenna Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 7:10 am

    56 “A lot of times some people try to compare being gay to being Black. No comparison. Being born Black is not a sin.” …. …. So you’re say being gay is a sin? Interesting.

57. Seressia Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 7:30 am

    57 According to the US Census Bureau 2006 ACS Estimates, California’s population is: * 59.8% White American, * 12.3% Asian American, * 6.2% Black or African American, * 0.7% American Indian, * 3.3% mixed, and 17.3% of some other race. * 35.9% are Hispanic or Latino (of any race) There are 2.26 million blacks in the entire state of California. Let’s say half of those are under voting age. Let’s be generous and say that 80% of the remainder were eligible/registered/voted. So, 800K black folks voted. 70% voted for Prop 8, which would make that what? 560K black folks? Considering that 5.4 million people voted in favor of Prop 8, that’s a whole heck of a bunch of non-black folks left over. 70% percent, while it sounds impressive, isn’t all that much when the actual number is considered. FWIW, I would have voted against Prop 8, and I’m one of “them.” I find it difficult to believe in the “sanctity of marriage” when drunk azz people can get married in Vegas 2 minutes after meeting each other, just because one has a penis and one doesn’t.

58. The Profane Angel Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 10:06 am

    58 Note to TeddyPig (off topic but not intending to hijack or distact thread) I grew up in Wilmington, and you remind me very much of a kid I went to high school with, Joel Perry. And that’s a major compliment, btw. Any chance you’re Joel in disguise, and while I guess if you are you can’t say so, I’m going to hope you are and say how the hell are you??? Still sticking it to our locals, in a “warm, friendly way” of course? (I’m relatively new to this mesage board thing and couldn’t figure out a way to send a PM – not enough coffee perhaps, or maybe it’s the ungodly hour, or that my computer illiteracy is terminal. My apologies for the interruption, everyone) TPA

59. Karen Scott Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 10:08 am

    59 Eve, I love that quote. Ebony, I think you can compare gays not being allowed to marry, with blacks being banned from marrying whites. They are both infringements on people’s humanity. What really annoys the hell out of me are the people who conveniently quote the bible when something is distasteful to them. It’s ridiculous, and it’s hypocritical. If you are going to talk about sins against god and the bible, then I expect you to be pure as the driven snow, i.e, no pre-marital sex (and then it better be purely for procreation and you better not enjoy it), no lying in any form, no cheating, no adultery, no stealing, (if you’ve ever taken so much as a pen from work, you’re going straight to hell) no impure thoughts etc etc. Can anyone honestly say that they are without sin? No? So in that case why do people choose to be so selective about which parts of the bible they listen to? It’s ok to fuck like rabbits,spawn shitloads of children out of wedlock, sometimes to different men, but not ok to let gay people marry the person they love? Utter hypocritical bullshit.

60. Teddypig Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    60 I grew up in Wilmington, and you remind me very much of a kid I went to high school with, Joel Perry. Actually my “redneck” grew up here in Wilmington. That’s Jason my partner he wanted to move back here and I said yes. We have been together almost 9 years now. I myself was an Army brat but always was brought back to San Francisco as home since all my grandparents lived there. Black people have always had to deal with privileged whites co-opting that which is ours. Why do you immediately slap a “white label” on Gay Rights and the struggle of homosexuals for equality? I don’t understand that thinking.

61. Teddypig Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    61 Pam’s House Blend

62. Alisha Rai Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    62 @ Ebony “They are not discriminating, they just don’t agree with the lifestyle.” Fine. Don’t agree. That is your personal choice. Think it’s a sin. Don’t hire them, don’t live near them, don’t let your kids play with them, cause God forbid the gay should catch (it’s a choice, right? As you said, no one is born gay like people are born black). But how can you take an entire groups rights AWAY? This is America. Equality for all. For those who voted for prop 8 (or here in florida prop 2), they went home after voting to their cozy little homes, secure and self riteous that they had made America…what? A little less sin free? Wiped out homosexuality? They’ll probably never think of it again, or if they do, only with satisfaction. But this measure has and will affect the lives of a significant portion of our population…the ones who voted for it don’t have to live with it for the rest of their lives. The people who it affects? Imagine loving someone to pieces, but not even being able to enter into a domestic partnership with that person. And before you say they can still be with that person, why do they have to get married, why the hell do heteros have to get married? This whole thing just makes me sick. My best friend sobbed his heart out when prop 2 passed, and its consumed his and his partner’s every waking thought for the past two weeks, and will continue to do so. Discriminate, please, I’m begging you. Far better to not score that promotion, than have the state tell you you’re a second class citizen and strip your rights. /soapbox

63. Kayleigh Jamison Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    63 Sort of off-topic, but Karen have you seen these? http://flickr.com/photos/barackobamadotcom/sets/72157608716313371/ Obama released photos of him and his family on election night, watching the results and McCain’s concession speech. As for all the hoopla over Michelle’s dress? I think she looked amazing.

64. Karen Scott Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 5:52 pm

    64 Author Comment They are a beautiful looking family aren’t they? By the way, how fabulous was Michelle Obama’s dress?

65. Kayleigh Jamison Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 7:42 pm

    65 They really are. His daughters are adorable. I can’t believe how calm and composed they all seem to have been. I freaking LOVED that dress. She’s been getting criticism for it over here, people think it was “too bold,” but I think it was fabulous. I have a feeling she’s going to be quite the fashion icon, like the new Jackie O, and I can’t wait!

66. Laura Vivanco Posted: Nov 8th, 2008 at 11:45 pm

    66 On the subject of Proposition 8 and the African-American vote, Nojojojo’s got what I think’s a really good, detailed post which touches on a lot of the issues raised on this thread. For example The margin by which Prop 8 passed was pretty slim, true, which means that every person who voted for it made a difference. And the AfAm vote might’ve carried the day if it had been oriented the other way, true. But the proportion of Californians aged 65 and older who voted yes was pretty high too (and also much larger than the pop of AfAms), and Halper isn’t excoriating old people. Ditto middle-class Californians, people who didn’t finish college, Mormons (and the Mormon church poured millions into getting Prop 8 passed, which probably had even more impact than that 7% of voters ever could), and probably a number of other demographic breakdown groups. So why does Halper point the finger mainly at black people? It seems to be because Barack Obama identifies as black. Halper notes that LGBTQ voters supported Obama, and therefore he expected black voters to support No on Prop 8. But what does one have to do with the other? and it isn’t the same as the civil rights issues that have long been the focus of African American efforts, and I think many (white) gay-rights activists fail to recognize the nuances. It’s important to remember that the right to marry whom one wanted — racially at least, per Loving vs. Virginia, the case often cited by gay marriage advocates — was never a significant concern of the Civil Rights Movement. That right was fought for in the courts, not the streets, and by predominantly-white organizations such as the ACLU. It’s not clear whether there was ever popular support for interracial marriage within the black community and we need to acknowledge unfairness and fight injustice when we see it. This crabs-in-a-barrel syndrome needs to stop. Nor do I mean to deny the very real anger GLBTs must be feeling right now towards everyone who voted for that dumbass law. I’d be mad too in Halper’s position, and I’d be looking for someone to blame. All I’m saying is that I’d blame 100% of the people that voted for Prop 8, not 7% of them. And I would try to understand why that group voted as it did, rather than simply dismissing them en masse as ungrateful, culturally-flawed wretches. That’s an oversimplification bordering on stereotype. And it sure as hell does nothing to solve the problem, so that the black community will vote more favorably the next time Prop 8 is challenged. It’s a nuanced post, and these excerpts don’t do justice to that, but I thought it was worth including them here anyway, to give a flavour of what Nojojojo has to say.

67. Roslyn Holcomb Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 12:58 am

    67 I’m not trying to be mean but Ms. Shepherd doesn’t strike me as not the brightest bulb on the tree. Of course Sherri is stupid, but there’s no rule keeping stupid poeple from voting. A great many people are religious because they want to be told what to do. They don’t want to think or do research. Now, you can dismiss them if you like, but I assure you the other side IS NOT. In fact they’re banking on it. So your campaign must appeal to them as well. Why do you immediately slap a “white label” on Gay Rights and the struggle of homosexuals for equality? I don’t understand that thinking. Because the face of homosexuality in this country is overwhelmingly a white one. Most of the people you see out and about agitating for gay marriage are also white. It would behoove the movement to change that if they’re interested in appealing to other groups. That would be a part of the outreach that must be done.

68. Emma Petersen Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 1:13 am

    68 Last night I talked to older generation friends about this. And each of them said the same. They voted no on Prop 8 because as one of my favorite people so eloquently put it, “Today they come for them. Tomorrow it will be me.” I don’t care if it was 2 black people or 2 million, we should know better. Because seriously, call me a conspiracy nut but I can guarantee you if they will f#ck over teh gays the negroes will be next. Don’t let Obama’s presidency lull you into a false sense of security.

69. Emma Petersen Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 1:17 am

    69 @ Roslyn – I don’t know if outreach is even possible. I know at my church we have a group for gay Catholics that let’s them know they are more than welcome but…maybe I am under the wrong impression but would traditionally black churches be receptive to speaking with gay people, white or black?

70. Ebony Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 1:19 am

    70 @Emma, People are free to be whoever they want to be in our country. @Karen,Nobody is perfect and I don’t know if anyone said they were. Everyone has sinned and will sin. Anyone who says they don’t sin–is lying (which is a sin). @Alisha, You can “NOT” agree with a person’s lifestyle and still be best friends, so that statement doesn’t apply here. I know it sounds so cliche’, but yes, I do have gay friends and even have some gay relatives. Anyway, it’s not taking away any rights. People are free to live like they want to here in our country. The only thing that it doesn’t allow is for folks to take advantage of benefits, which understandably I can see why that’s an issue if you’re with your partner for years and then they die or something and you’re left stuck out in the cold…but marriage was ordained between heterosexuals. We can agree to disagree because being gay and being Black are two different things.

71. Ebony Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 1:22 am

    71 Don’t let Obama’s presidency lull you into a false sense of security Emma, I had to laugh when I read this part of your comment.

72. Ebony Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 1:25 am

    72 maybe I am under the wrong impression but would traditionally black churches be receptive to speaking with gay people, white or black? One thing about Black churches, we’ve embraced people from all walks of life–even when we don’t agree with their lifestyle. You can believe in one thing and not discriminate against a person. No matter your race or sexual orientation, I can’t name one Black church that will turn anyone away.

73. Emma Petersen Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 2:10 am

    73 Emma, I had to laugh when I read this part of your comment. I worry that people feel that now we have a black president the work is over. When actually the work has just begun, children. EVERYTHING that goes wrong with this presidency will be because this man is black. Everything his wife does, everything his children do will because they are black. (They’re already talking about the first lady’s dress that night. Ooooh too flashy! (we all know they meant ghetto) Puh-lease. Michelle looked FEIRCE!) And as black people we need to tread very carefully in the next coming years because I guarentee you ALL eyes will be on us.

74. Ebony Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 2:21 am

    74 I worry that people feel that now we have a black president the work is over. Emma, I don’t think Black people think that at all—that’s a misconception. We all know just because our great country pulled together and voted a Black man into the oval office, doesn’t mean the entire struggle is over…what it does is give us hope that people as a whole have changed—and that’s a good thing…yes, we still have to be twice as good as non-AAs to excel, etc…but it’s a step in the right direction. EVERYTHING that goes wrong with this presidency will be because this man is black. Everything his wife does, everything his children do will because they are black Unfortunately, you’re probably right on this. There’s no way around it. We always have to be on our p’s and q’s in any position we hold (whether its the average worker, or we’re running the company) and he’ll be under a microscope, but he knows that and he’s ready.

75. Emma Petersen Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 2:22 am

    75 One thing about Black churches, we’ve embraced people from all walks of life–even when we don’t agree with their lifestyle. You can believe in one thing and not discriminate against a person. No matter your race or sexual orientation, I can’t name one Black church that will turn anyone away. @ Ebony – Maybe it’s different here but I’ve heard of churches who ask members to leave because they are “sinning”. These sins can run the gamaunt from wearing make-up and pants to having a child out of wedlock and just “acting” homosexually. *shrugs* I don’t know, I’ve only been a traditionally black church once. I know all black churches aren’t like this but I have to say as a person used to a 45 minute mass it seemed like I was in there for days.

76. Ebony Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 2:27 am

    76 Maybe it’s different here but I’ve heard of churches who ask members to leave because they are “sinning”. These sins can run the gamaunt from wearing make-up and pants to having a child out of wedlock and just “acting” homosexually Wow…really. Then the benches should be empty because we all sin. Thankfully, the churches I’ve been to aren’t like that or I would have to stay at home because I was just lusting…I mean thinking of Robin Thicke as I listened to his latest CD.

77. AztecLady Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 2:28 am

    77 Just to be bitchy erm… to go on the record: I hate with the passion of a thousand suns when people talk about being gay as a “lifestyle.” Frankly, if being homosexual were a choice, given how often it has meant death, persecution, humiliation, abuse, condemnation and excommunication–to list just a few of the consequences–would people willfully declare themselves gay? What, are all people who come out as homosexuals suicidal? Or just blasé about the consequences of their “choice”? Can the selfrighteous “lifestyle”-calling, “ohmybestfriendandevenanunclearegay” so-accepting (not) crowd even consider how difficult and heart wrenching coming out is for most homosexuals, and just how absolute the need to be true to one’s essential nature must be, to make homosexuals brave their family, friends, community–and their so often negative opinions–by coming out?

78. Emma Petersen Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 2:28 am

    78 @ Ebony – To borrow on something Chris Rock said, “normal” black people may not think this but the not so “normal” black people do. The thing is, there are some of us out there that expect Obama to get into the oval office and start handing out 40 acres and mules. And to honest I’d be insulted if he did. There is no way to repay me for my peoples’ blood that drenches this soil except to treat me as you’d treat any person.

79. Ebony Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 2:31 am

    79 And to honest I’d be insulted if he did. There is no way to repay me for my peoples’ blood that drenches this soil except to treat me as you’d treat any person. Ditto

80. Emma Petersen Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 2:37 am

    80 Wow…really. Then the benches should be empty because we all sin. Thankfully, the churches I’ve been to aren’t like that or I would have to stay at home because I was just lusting…I mean thinking of Robin Thicke as I listened to his latest CD. I’ve encountered more than one AA person who told me they were perfect because they were “saved” and my reply was that they really should stop drinking the kool-aid because man is not impervious to sin. God gave us free will for a reason, so we would turn away from sin but that didn’t mean we would never sin again. And really. Alan Thicke? Hehe. He’s so skinny.

81. Ebony Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 2:41 am

    81 God gave us free will for a reason, so we would turn away from sin but that didn’t mean we would never sin again. Amen. And really. Alan Thicke? Hehe. He’s so skinny. Robin Thicke…he’s Alan Thicke’s son…he can sang…not sing…but sang his butt off.

82. Ciar Cullen Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 2:52 am

    82 Eh, I’m late to this party, again. But I live in the US, on the East Coast, and I was stunned (probably stupidly) by the truly jubilent feeling on Wednesday amongst my colleagues (whatever their race). Granted, I’m probably the most conservative person on my liberal campus, but I felt a sense of peace and hope I haven’t felt in a long time. Ever? As one black colleague pointed out–there are assholes of every race, and the media is happy to feature them. Rational people will not blame whatever happens to the President on his race. Nor will they credit his accomplishments *solely* to his race. He faces a shitload of problems. I’d like to just give it a try, get behind him and just try. You know?

83. Emma Petersen Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 4:13 am

    83 @ Ebony – LMAO! I totally said Alan Thicke, didn’t I? Freudian slip? Hehe. Probably.

84. Teddypig Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 5:13 am

    84 Most of the people you see out and about agitating for gay marriage are also white. It would behoove the movement to change that if they’re interested in appealing to other groups. That would be a part of the outreach that must be done. Well if you are talking celebrities I do know both Magic Johnson & Samuel L. Jackson campaigned heavily against Prop 8. In fact I think Magic Johnson showed up on Larry King Live about it.

85. Miki Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 5:59 am

    85 I’ve never bothered to look this up – being a single person – but, if I understand it correctly, nowadays you may choose to be married in church, but it isn’t considered “legal” unless you have a “marriage license” registered by the state. I doubt my thoughts on this will ever “fly”, but I’ll share them anyway. If the religious groups feel that “marriage” is a God-given right, the let them have it. If you have your relationship acknowledged in a church (synagogue/mosque/whatever), you can call that relationship a marriage. And the religious groups can choose according to their beliefs who they will or will not “marry”. The government license (and legal protections) to acknowledge that two people are choosing to unite their lives and possessions, should be titled something else. Domestic partners, legal unions, whatever – I don’t much care what name you apply to it. And the government can determine what it defines as the “union” based on its own definition of human rights, without “taking away” from anyone’s religious beliefs, but also without having to bend to them, either. And if some of our current “legal protections” assume that “marriage”=”children”, then revise the legal provisions to be not be for marriage, but for parents. There. Religious beliefs protected. Family legal provisions protected. Human rights protected.

86. Karen Scott Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 9:52 am

    86 Author Comment Kayleigh, I can’t believe Michelle is getting flack for that dress, it was awesome! No doubt most of the comments will have come from the Righteous Right.

87. Roslyn Holcomb Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

    87 Well if you are talking celebrities I do know both Magic Johnson & Samuel L. Jackson campaigned heavily against Prop 8. In fact I think Magic Johnson showed up on Larry King Live about it. But they’re not gay (at least not openly). For that matter Coretta Scott King was also in favor of gay marriage, but again, did the No 8 people mention that in their campaign? I really think this is an outreach issue, not a homophobic one.

88. Teddypig Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 5:05 pm

    88 But they’re not gay (at least not openly). For that matter Coretta Scott King was also in favor of gay marriage, but again, did the No 8 people mention that in their campaign? I really think this is an outreach issue, not a homophobic one. I think because of the difficulty of reaching any Church with any Gay issue they are so firmly against as a sin it was felt better to attempt to have straight people represent an enlightened Civil Rights argument. Obviously that did not work. I honestly think the best way to handle this is to enforce the strict division between church and state that I believe in and to start ripping tax exemptions away from these big mega churches all together. They want to become preaching political organizations and funding statewide petitions and aligning with laws and parties at any level then pay up. The laws are already there on the books they just need to be enforced. I think there would be suddenly less religious zealots when taxes become the issue.

89. Roslyn Holcomb Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 9:00 pm

    89 IMO, and of course, this is only my opinion, the best way to get folks on your side is to show them that they are discriminating against people who look like them. If homosexuality only has a white, and especially white male, face they’re not going to be seen as victims. White males are seen as perpetrators and beneficiaries of white privilege and as long as that’s the case it’s very difficult to demonstrate that this is wrong.

90. Robin Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    90 I honestly think the best way to handle this is to enforce the strict division between church and state that I believe in and to start ripping tax exemptions away from these big mega churches all together. IMO this can be a dangerous road to start down. Besides the fact that the establishment clauses does not merely protect people *from* religion, but also protects people *for* their religious beliefs, there is the fact that churches are among the most active anti-poverty mechanisms in our society, and they are sometimes the most effective and efficient (think of the way the churches acted after Katrina, for example). Further, the separation between church and state doesn’t mean that there is absolutely no relationship between the two (that would be discriminatory in another way). And in the world of non-profit status, the impact in the kind of thing you suggest would ripple WAY beyond religious organizations, potentially muzzling secular organizations that some people take issue with ideologically. It is a really delicate balance when it comes to policing the various aspects of the First Amendment (which includes the establishment clause) because a narrower interpretation and enforcement philosophy lowers protection for all of us. IMO, as long as we have a sense of competitive oppression (which often shows itself during elections, as when, for example, many second and third generation Latinos voted in CA to strip undocumented immigrants of certain services and protections), we’re going to have these revolving areas of discrimination. Jumping off what Roslyn said, I’d suggest that we need to move past protecting specific group interests and embrace the strength that comes with a more cooperative model of social and political organization. Where we continue to cling to our superficial and circumstantial differences we set ourselves up to stand alone when we most need the power of effective alliances, IMO.

91. Teddypig Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 10:42 pm

    91 IMO this can be a dangerous road to start down. Besides the fact that the establishment clauses does not merely protect people *from* religion, but also protects people *for* their religious beliefs, there is the fact that churches are among the most active anti-poverty mechanisms in our society, and they are sometimes the most effective and efficient (think of the way the churches acted after Katrina, for example). Robin, Did you not just hear that the Mormon church donated something like 15 million dollars to Yes on Prop 8? That money is never going to go to house the homeless or feed the hungry. This grand anti-poverty mechanism you seem to think is happening due to religion is more likely to be used to fund political conservative social issues. Much like most of the South. In fact most of the effective efforts to feed the hungry I have contributed to are simply community programs with no single church tie in. So no Robin, I do not agree with your theory but point to the obvious facts.

92. Teddypig Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 10:49 pm

    92 Read this Salt Lake Tribune article about all this but pay attention to what he says about “Were you listening in church when the letter was read from the First Presidency about supporting proposition eight?” http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10798657 This is what I am saying Robin.

93. Robin Posted: Nov 9th, 2008 at 10:24 pm

    93 Oh, I’m well aware of the involvement of the LDS in Prop 8 (Daily Kos had the docs recently, showing the the LDS was planning this as far back as 1997). It’s one more reason I thought the No on 8 campaign would have been more aggressive early on. But IMO the way to combat those discriminatory beliefs is not to head down a road where unintended consequences actually create a worse social situation for those you want to protect. The National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan (http://www.npc.umich.edu/) has done some fascinating research on the impact of churches on various issues in low-income communities, on the post-Katrina response, and on the crime rates in urban areas, among other things. I’m not a religious person myself, but I believe that we get a lot of secular social benefits from churches, benefits we would not necessarily get if we had to rely on the government (regulations often delay action) or even solely on secular organizations (the faith aspect of churches seems to have specific importance in certain communities on certain problems).

94. JC Wilder Posted: Nov 10th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

    94 One of the many guidlines of Christianity is to ‘judge not let ye be judged’ – and yet the Christians seem to spend an inordinate amount of time judging others. The religious right would love to try and force their beliefs down the throats of everyone – including those of us who are NOT Christian. So women should be forced to have children if they are pregnant because it’s the right thing to do. Gays are not allowed to publicly proclaim their love for one another nor make it a binding relationship because it’s ‘wrong’. What next? There are Christians who believe the women must wear skirts and not cut their hair. There are sects who believe that women must bow to the commands of their husbands or fathers. There are sects who marry off their children at birth…where does it end? This country was founded on the concept of freedom of religion. This means you are free to believe as you will without fear of retribution. It also means that I am free to believe as I will without someone else trying to force me to conform to their beliefs. I believe gays should be able to marry and partake of any right given to hetero couples so basically, if I were living in California, the religious right just shoved their beliefs down my throat by allowing churches to donate to the No on 8 fund. Is this wrong? You betcha! I agree with TeddyPig – any religious institution should be censured for delving into politics. They should lose their tax exempt status for doing so.

95. Teddypig Posted: Nov 11th, 2008 at 12:40 am

    95 But IMO the way to combat those discriminatory beliefs is not to head down a road where unintended consequences actually create a worse social situation for those you want to protect. From IRS Publication 1828 Page 5, Substantial Lobbying Activity In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status. Robin, what part of this is not understandable to the Church? What part of “ignorance of the law” is acceptable in court as an excuse for me and you? Does the IRS let you NOT pay taxes because you did not know? Our country is in debt right now and how much would taxing of these obvious political organizations help pay that bill?

96. Robin Posted: Nov 11th, 2008 at 6:01 am

    96 When I read that IRS reg, I hone in on the phrases “a substantial part of its activities” and “too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status [emphasis mine].” I doubt the LDS would be pleading ignorance; I suspect they’d be pleading that their lobbying does not meet the “substantial part” requirement. And IMO it would be one hell of a fight to get a court to rule that they exceed the “too much” bar, in part because of the balancing of the First Amendment rights, and also because I think that regulatory bar is very high. That doesn’t mean taxpayers should not challenge the tax-exempt status of any particular non-profit; but realistically I think it’s going to be tough job to take on a well-established church, especially one as large and multifaceted as the LDS. In the case of Prop 8 does that seem unjust? Hell, yes. But I’d personally be pissed if someone sued a non-profit for lobbying “too much” for no votes on Prop 8, and I could see that kind of challenge happen, too.

97. Teddypig Posted: Nov 11th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    97 Robin, First off I am not saying that ALL Mormons are to blame in this case. I am though saying their Church was THE overwhelming financial support for the whole campaign and the major organizer. I do not even begin to think that The Mormon Church as an organization even losing that tax exempt status would actually stop people being Mormon or believing in their church. I just do not see the sense in not seriously investigating this incident. The Mormon Church in this case, as with many other Churches in the past, is plainly not helping the homeless or feeding the hungry or providing any anti-poverty support you seem to think is key to them keeping their tax exempt status here. They are promoting the ideology of the Church Leaders politically even against the wishes of some of their more vocal members. So I don’t see your slippery slope here. If they want to become a political group then they need to not cover it up with a non-profit status that does not match the public’s expectations of what a Church should be doing. What you seem to be telling me is that they are so big that even though they went against the spirit of that law they can still win in court. Maybe, but maybe that will bring better definition of that law. As you well know that is how better laws get created or existing laws get clarified.

98. Roslyn Holcomb Posted: Nov 11th, 2008 at 5:47 pm

    98 I know that the IRS investigated several Episcopal churches because their priests preached against the Iraq war. I can’t see how it’s possible for a church to give millions of dollars to deprive people of their civil rights yet maintain their exempt status.