Do Communities of Color Oppose Same-Sex Marriage?
-
hXXp://race.change.org/blog/view/do_communities_of_color_oppose_same-sex_marriage
by Adriel Luis August 05, 2010 11:21 AM (PT)
At the polls on election day in November 2008, a black woman in front of me turned in her ballot and shouted, "I voted for Obama and against gay marriage, and that's all that matters to me!" Soon after, the results came in. California voters had helped elect the first black president with the same ballot that they used to pass Prop 8, the ban on gay marriage.
Immediately, the question was framed: Were minority voters who helped usher in President Obama also responsible for helping kill gay marriage? The message was simple yet scathing: People of color are as pro-race rights as they are anti-gay rights.
This, of course, was all balderdash. And as we celebrate yesterday's court ruling striking down Prop 8, it's important to understand that — contrary to popular belief — this victory comes with the blessing of a substantial proportion of the race rights community.
First, let's get the stats right. Immediately after election day in 2008, the exit numbers came in, proclaiming that a whopping 70% of black voters voted for Prop 8. Such figures helped frame the narrative that blacks were the leading group opposing gay marriage. Actually, in January last year, an in-depth study found that black support for Prop 8 was actually more in the 57-59% range — about the same the proportion of college-educated white voters.
In other words, race wasn't a major deciding factor in Prop 8, despite how aggressively Prop 8 proponents targeted black churches prior to the election. Similarly, it was revealed that the Latino vote in favor of Prop 8 had likewise been exaggerated, and when religion was factored out, race played virtually no role.
Also ignored was the fact that the NAACP's California chapter spent a considerable amount of effort denouncing Prop 8 prior to the election, and participating in efforts to overturn it afterward. In 2008, for example, NAACP chairman Julian Bond spoke in support of same-sex marriages, stating, "Like race, sexuality is not a preference. It is immutable, unchangeable, and the Constitution protects us all from prejudices and discrimination based on immutable differences." In February 2009, the national NAACP office announced its support for overturning Prop 8.
As for the idea that people of color oppose gay rights? Actually, the Asian-American voting community was the leading racial demographic that voted against Prop 8 (hellz yeah!), with 46% opposing the initiative. Among Asian-American voters aged 18 to 34, 59% voted against banning same-sex marriage. A study showed that opposition of the bill increased still further among those with better English proficiency, suggesting that many immigrant voters may have voted for Prop 8 because of miseducation, not disdain for queer rights.
Yes, race does play a role in discussions about sexuality. But to view America's minority communities as somehow "anti-gay" disregards countless factors and serves only to sow discord. People of all sexualities and the people they love come in every color. Our civil rights movements can't be divided.
Photo Credit: Doxiehaus
-
I realize I'm posting late, but you know I got much better internet service so I'm looking at the forums more - and my reply is timeless so it really doesn't matter:
Since ballots are secret, I always wonder how they decide which group voted which way. It must be other kinds of surveys' or exit polls, of course, but whenever stats are reported right along side the actual votes it makes it seem like we "know" exactly how people voted. At least it does to me. And of course, we don't.
The other thing, odd how the younger Asian segment voted more in favor of Prop 8, but as already noted english proficiency was not part of the survey…..
-
Even if we call it "gay civil unions" i don't honestly see how it is anyone's business to ban it. Sheesh. It sucks that i can't name my husbear a dependent if i need to. I also can't visit if he's sick because i'm not "family". Now is that really fair? (at least that's the way it is in america)
I'm tempted to keep a small card in my wallet identifying my boyfriend as having visiting rights, if ever.
-
I'm tempted to keep a small card in my wallet identifying my boyfriend as having visiting rights, if ever.
That will have ZERO effect if the law doesn't allow non family visitation.
-
Agree. And that's exactly what irks me about the whole ban on gay marriage thing. How else can we be "family"? Move to a different locale?
-
I listen to the right wing (I accidentally typed "right wind" maybe that is the correct description after all?) radio talk shows a few minutes each week just to see what they are saying. I don't know my history well enough to say whether it has "always" been this way in the USA but it seems for some time now, any political subject is about power, control, and which side of the fence allows the legislator the most likelihood of keeping his/her seat.
So Christmas week, most of the blowhards take vacations and have guest hosts - Rush Limpballs had an British sounding guy who said his neighbor in New Hampshire produced maple syrup and had collection lines snaking through the forest from maple tree to sap collection house. He claims the "government" didn't specify state or fed - sent a letter to his neighbor asking if the lines were "protected from terrorists" with the host suggesting the government worried about maple syrup being deliberately sabotaged with anthrax? (ie show me the letter!!) As if I believe everything a rightwinger says about the government with no proof. And they always claim liberals are gullible and dumb. Then he goes on to say Obama says "now DADT is done, we can go on to the economy." Rags about "hopefully everything is okay for Gays, will the Gays get enough on this or that economic reform, tax cut etc. Maybe we should check with the "Gays" about everything. The host is really tying Obama to the Gays as if Obama can't make a move if it doesn't make the "Gays" happy. Wish I caught his name. I'm not kidding, he said both of these things about the maple syrup & Obama & Gays.
On Sean Hannity's show is a woman host interviewing the lone woman Republican senator elect "kelly" somebody. Didn't catch the hosts name nor Kelly's last name. They talk for about 20 minutes, no exaggeration, about "taking the country back" and "I ran for office because I don't like the direction the country is going, I have two small children who will not have the opportunities we had" etc. etc. etc. They said precisely ONE specific thing in all that time and that is the debt is out of control.
Yes, it is, mostly put there by THEIR party, the Republicans due to spending 1 billion EACH day on a war in Iraq that accomplished nothing. Anyway, my point is that with all the talk about Democracy and American values, one of which is FREEDOM, it seems a very core American value to allow people freedom of choice. Especially since we have had Same Sex marriage in Massachussetts for how long now? 8 or 9 years and the sky hasn't fallen?
PS I'm vehemently opposed to civil unions. Separate is NOT equal, I pay the same taxes and have all the same responsibilities to obey all the other laws the breeders do. I want MARRIAGE same as they have. Actually, to be completely logical, EVERYONE should have civil unions since that would make the government neutral on the topic (which they should be anyhow) and the Churches should give marriage. Then if you wanted to get married you could go to an MCC church or Quaker or a denomination that allows it.
-
The problem with removing "marriage" from the government is that you will need to change a lot of treaties. Then of course, it makes it the logical time for the government to take away countless rights granted under the current marriage laws.
-
The problem with removing "marriage" from the government is that you will need to change a lot of treaties. Then of course, it makes it the logical time for the government to take away countless rights granted under the current marriage laws.
Exactly!! For me it is these rights that I seek not some "lessened" version of Marriage rights.All people should have the rights of marriage and the benefits this gives one.
-
Raphjd - I'll take your word about the treaties - although I wonder why treaties would have to be ratified if our own states can pass laws (and/or update state Constitutions) to not recognize other state's marriages. IE Iowa doesn't have to recognize a same sex couple married in Massachussetts. While I don't know for absolute fact that someone has challenged this it seems almost certain that someone would since recognizing marriages and all other things supposedly rests with the "Full Faith and credit"clause in our (USA) Constitution. Which is what they say is how each state recognizes other states straight marriages, credit card debt all other legal instruments…..
Still, wouldn't marriages versus civil unions be an internal matter for the USA or any other country? I don't think a 12 year old girl married in an Arab country coming to the USA would be considered married here?
-
There is a difference between "full faith and credit" between the states and "comity" between nations. While both mean the same, their scope is very different.
There is leeway in marriage laws for individual countries and this is allowed under the various treaties and international law. The issues I mentioned before is changing from marriage to civil unions. While marriage comity has long been established under various treaties and international law, civil unions is not. So if the US stopped doing state marriages and went only to civil unions, every country in the world would be fully within their right to refuse it.
-
When you say "leeway" is this where the USA can decide to not recognize the marriage of a 12 year old from another country? Plus, I thought countries ignored each others treaties all the time when they feel like it anyway! I have read many many complaints about NAFTA, for one example. Human rights would be another big area of concern with places like the former Soviet Union & China etc…...Arab countries too.
-
YES, there is leeway in what "marriage" is under treaties and international law. There are no treaties or international law that deal with civil unions, not even within the EU.
Ignoring treaties is a whole different issue. There are things that can be done, such as sue in international courts or go to war or ignore it or whatever.
Many treaties are never signed by various countries. Human rights treaties were/are rarely, if ever, signed by communist countries or countries ruled by dictators. This means that unless they are doing things like genocide, there is very little that can be done under international law. An example is that the US under GWB never signed the World Court treaty for fear that Americans {mainly the GWB administration} would be tried for war crimes. Nor did the US sign the Kyoto Agreement {climate change treaty}.
-
Wow, that is a surprise that civil unions are not mentioned in the EU.
Now, saying things CAN be done for treaty violations and what IS done are two very different things. I heard complaints here all the time, living in the midwest, about the Auto industry, logging industry etc. what violations Canada was doing, undercutting us in prices, violating the treaty etc.
Now remember, there are policies based on laws for every single thing I'm mentioning below:
As you may know, I work in a human service job and the things our clients get away with is truly mind boggling. I probably write up more fraud referrals than anyone (what I'm saying here is if no one gets around to writing them, NOTHING is done except possibly on a rare random audit) and even then the system is set up to "fail." For example if a woman EVER put the husband/boyfriends name on the application, (an annual thing) and he turns out to be in the home later, the judges will say "it is the worker's job to determine eligibility, she put him on the application once and if there is a discrepancy (nice word for possible lie) then the worker should clarify it." MY opinion is she signed applications annually after that one time; attesting to the truth of what she filled out and didn't put his name down. She should repay every penny she got. And even that is only money we catch him at, working a legit job. If he worked under the table, then there is no overissuance. (what I mean here is that if he didn't earn any budgetable income, then she didn't get any overpayments. The lie alone means nothing, unfortunately) Plus the welfare office policy conveniently ignores the fact that if he was reported in the home, they would have made him go to a work program where he might have found a job (or at least been motivated to find his own instead of participating) AND we wouldn't have paid a baby sitter for her. Keep in mind though, publications and press releases tell the public that we are diligent about fraud and oh how strict the rules are when I promise you they are not.
I'm not suggesting you're unaware that official policies of any kind don't always jive with actual practice, but I bet you had no idea our welfare system was so disingenous. I mean, again, my opinion - it is one thing to give the benefit of the doubt, to safeguard children or whatever, but so much of it is just plain wrong and the opposite of what the public thinks. How about this - woman has child, never marries the father. Refuses to cooperate with child support, no paternity is established. She STILL gets insurance and food money for the child and I actually had one today - the man EARNS $50,000 US DOLLARS annually, but because there is no legal relationship, he can't be made to be part of the case. To be fair, this is not by any means the majority of cases, but if we claim we value family etc. we should not reward illegitimacy. Correct?
-
Within the EU, there are individual national laws on civil unions/partnerships, but there is no EU treaty or EU wide law on it.
While in certain things there can be leeway between written policy and actual practice, in most others there can not be.
If a country does not accept a civil union, then the couple can not immigrate to another country under such a visa. They will need to find another type of visa or not move, separate or whatever.
Before the UK had civil partnerships, partners were not guaranteed to be able to visit their partner in the hospital. State hospitals {NHS} treated gay couples as not family, while private hospitals were much friendlier to gays. In 2002, I was supposed to have sinus surgery in an NHS hospital and on the admission form they clearly said that all non family visitation was not allowed for short term in-patients. Thankfully, my surgery was pushed to a private hospital due to scheduling conflicts at the NHS hospital, meaning that my partner could visit me the whole time.
-
I'm tempted to keep a small card in my wallet identifying my boyfriend as having visiting rights, if ever.
That will have ZERO effect if the law doesn't allow non family visitation.
I just outright lie when it comes that, I always state I'm Family, and I have never been asked for ID to confirm that I am Family
-
Now, saying things CAN be done for treaty violations and what IS done are two very different things. I heard complaints here all the time, living in the midwest, about the Auto industry, logging industry etc. what violations Canada was doing, undercutting us in prices, violating the treaty etc.
:ot:
I know I am most likely to get flagged for off Topic, BUT,Canada's violations of NAFTA, EXCUSE ME, but USA is the country that does whatever it wants, over the isssue of logging, the USA took Canada to World Court 8 times (on softwood lumber issue alone), and CANADA won each time, but that didn't matter, USA kept up their complaining and finally got an ally in Prime Minster Harper and we now pay USA on the issue of softwood lumber, even though CANADA was in the right every single time (not our fault our environmental laws are tougher than USA), and as a part of NAFTA neither one of our countries is suppose to subsidize farming, I see reports all the time though stating the USA is doing just that, while their CDN counterparts can only get bailouts if their crops are destroyed, and its amazing how certain things are 1 thing in CANADA, and something different in the USA.
IN Canada we had MAD COW DISEASE, IN USA its was known as downer syndrome
IN CANADA it was called SARS, in the USA it was known as severe pneumoniaBTW your perceived undercutting in prices, is based on two major factors: 1) CDN dollar is usually worth less than the USD (has been changing drastically recently) 2) that CDNS pay for a basic healthcare system thru our tax dollars, hence the corporations don't have to spend an arm and a leg on providing health benefits. THE USA is the only country out of the 35 most industrialized countries in the world where the individual citizens have to get private insurance for healthcare or pay for it out of pocket. (if you doubt me watch SICKO a documentary by Michael Moore about American healthcare
In Ontario, Canada if you break your leg, you go to the hospital, they take x-rays, put a cast on your leg, and they will set you up with crutches. Now if your your wondering what you are going to pay for this hospital visit, well let's see. u r responsible for getting to the hospital whether it was taxi, ambulance, or transit, and you have pay for the crutches. (ambulance ride $50.00, crutches $50.00)
IN USA, uhm, yeah, a broken leg is what like $6,000
-
YES, you did very off topic.
IN Canada we had MAD COW DISEASE, IN USA its was known as downer syndrome
IN CANADA it was called SARS, in the USA it was known as severe pneumoniaDown Syndrome in the US is not related to mad cow disease and never has been. The US also had SARS.
Down Syndrome and "mad cow" have some similar symptoms, maybe that's what you are thinking.
Google "sars in the us" and the first 3 links will be to the US's Center of Disease Control or CDC and it talks about SARS.
-
Apollopaul - I said that I HEAR about such things. While it is fine for you to point out the other side, I was illustrating my point with an example, not writing a thesis about NAFTA violations. You are correct, the USA is the guilty party far more than Canada in that relationship, but you dont' have to be so hostile. What I said did not need to be rebutted, since it was just an example about a much broader issue…..thanks
-
Apollopaul - I said that I HEAR about such things. While it is fine for you to point out the other side, I was illustrating my point with an example, not writing a thesis about NAFTA violations. You are correct, the USA is the guilty party far more than Canada in that relationship, but you dont' have to be so hostile. What I said did not need to be rebutted, since it was just an example about a much broader issue…..thanks
Don't mind him… He's just a little unmedicated... Or rather, hasn't been medicated enough. Not sure which
-
Apollopaul - I said that I HEAR about such things. While it is fine for you to point out the other side, I was illustrating my point with an example, not writing a thesis about NAFTA violations. You are correct, the USA is the guilty party far more than Canada in that relationship, but you dont' have to be so hostile. What I said did not need to be rebutted, since it was just an example about a much broader issue…..thanks
Don't mind him… He's just a little unmedicated... Or rather, hasn't been medicated enough. Not sure which
it has nothing to do with medication, smart guy, but a lack of a certain something, speaking of which I would really love to receive :bj2:
