The meme that will not die -- blacks enabled Prop 8 to pass

I'm glad that

someone else saw this piece. You describe it as hysterical and that's the first word that went through my mind as I read it this weekend. It's stunningly ignorant, not only in it take on homophobia and race, but in its lack of references and its glaring lack of a central, organized theme.

I stopped reading it at one point and asked myself exactly what the hell their point was. I mean beyond some truly shrill and elitist hysteria, what did they hope their readers would take away? The worst purpose I could fit to the piece is a forwarding of the idea that religious blacks are responsible for the passage of propr 8. At best, these two authored a poor stream-of-consciousness contemplation of their own misdirected anger over Prop 8.

Seriously, pieces like this are why I usually avoid the Times Opinion section.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 07:38:56 AM CST

Unfortunately this is becoming one of those urban legends

that seems to maintain a life of it's own, regardless of the arguments that can be made to refute it.

Race as a predictor of homophobia? Please, a person's selection of footwear is a better predictor.

Conservative religious attitudes a predictor? Absolutely. Is there a segment of the black community that is religiously conservative? Absolutely. Can you go from A to B to C on that one? Not at all.

I'm sorry, but looking at precinct analysis of Amendment 2 in Florida makes it very clear that being white was a far better predictor of support for our marriage amendment. Of the top 100 precincts that supported amendment 2, by percentage, 85 were white. And you have to work your way down to number 12 before you find the first black precinct.
I seriously doubt you'll find California to be any different.

Unfortunately this scapegoating is a convenient rationalization to avoid the obvious; the opponents on 8 in California and 2 in Florida ran bad campaigns. In both cases, the decisions to avoid reaching out to the black community had disastrous repercussions. To try and blame a demographic that we deliberately refused to try and persuade makes absolutely no sense to me. It's like blaming a segment of the population for failing to buy your product when you didn't advertise to them. It's not the recipient of the message that is to blame - it's the person sending the message.

So learn from your lessons and shut up about things that have no basis in fact. Otherwise, you might as well be Republicans who during the last election cycle clearly demonstrated that facts and truth have no place in our political discussions.

---

by: wvayens @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 07:39:55 AM CST

Let's hear more about the Footwear Hypothesis!

What, people with Wide Feet caused Prop. 8 to pass? All that smashing of their feet into too-narrow shoes make the Wide Feet people crabby?

---

by: NancyP @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 11:51:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No, it's the status-shoes that do it...

leave us people w/ wide feet out of it. After all, those of us w/ WWW feet have experienced discrimination and unequal treatment: we're used to other people getting what they want immediately while we wait to see what the shoe store worker might have in the back, we get false advertising and bait/switch maneuvers, and we're not taken seriously by people w/ no problems finding good footwear.

And if you have big AND wide feet, we're told to go to the back of the store where the discards, discounts, and castoffs hang out. OR, if you are female, you resort to wearing men's shoes, esp. for outdoor boots and hikers. Which have their own problems, and set of social stereotypes attached.

I'd say, overall, wide feet = likely to be Allied With The Cause, IMO.

---

by: lyonside @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:41:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry - satire, not dig against people with any kind of feet

I merely thought - who's crabbier than someone with ill-fitting shoes?

---

by: NancyP @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 13:06:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

oh, and I didn't take offense...

It's ridiculous to brand any one group of people as monolithic (including GLBTs - my new nitpick is to always write "communities" not "community.")

But once I started thinking about it, I could come up w/ rationales as to why someone w/ wide feet could sympathize with others outside the "mainstream."

It's too easy. Which is probably why it's wrong. :)

---

by: lyonside @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 14:48:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

thanks Pam

Someone needs to refute this garbage and I'm glad you are at the forefront. I read that article and was appalled that they are STILL pulling out the 'if Hilary won' meme. Hilary couldn't even say 'gay' on LOGO; if you can't say it there, where CAN you say it. If you saw her interview on there, she could barely bring herself to paint more than just broad strokes and platitudes.

The NYT has lost all credibility in my eyes. That article/opinion just caps off what was the most race-baiting coverage of the election than I've ever seen. Almost every week 'will white folks vote for Obama.' Obama wins 10 states yet Hilary is on the front page. And he still won. HA!

---

by: MitchNYC @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 07:56:40 AM CST

Why would Judy Miller's enablers have any credibility?

The NYT is an awful paper and always has been.

Black homophobia is real. As a gay African-American I've lived with it all my 61 years. (And as you'll note the gay comes first.) But what this op-ed is really about is an attack on the NYT and all of the "Mainstream's" true enemy -- Liberals (aka. "Dirty Fucking Hippies")

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 08:22:01 AM CST

yes!

That is something I was smelling in this. The times hates DFHs. They just don't gel well with stories about renovated Soho lofts, skiing in northern Sweden, and how Bulgari has to economize (That's currently on the online front page.).

As I read the piece, I also got the sense that the authors love, a little too much, seeing a divide in the Democratic base. It's a really shrill celebration.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 13:40:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Totals of Prop8 votes

I posted a quick view of the counties in CA that had the largest total yes and no vote margins.

The more detailed breakdown by all CA counties is presented on Jim's 2.0 blog.

I just want to state that when looking at these totals - why did the authors of the article in the NYT see that Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties are the cause of the loss. Those three counties alone account for the Yes on 8 winning out of the total of 11 million voters.

Shameful behavior on behalf of the Times.

---

by: The Scientist's View @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 08:31:41 AM CST

"shocking realization" indeed

"a host of sociological studies confirm that many blacks feel a significant aversion to homosexuality itself, finding it morally and sexually repugnant."

Wow, just the blacks, huh? We can't say the same about "many whites"? We've come a long way, baby.

I'll confess, I love this piece because it fuels my Caitlin Flanagan-hating fire!  

---

by: amyruth @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 08:38:05 AM CST

Yeah, But ...

While it's true that A-A voters in California did not by themselves write Prop 8 into law, it's also true that a hell of a lot of them voted for it.  Put another way, A-A voters aren't the arch-fiends of the story, but they're no where near being good guys either.

---

by: S1 @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 08:52:51 AM CST

As I said over at Pandagon...

The issue is that if these groups (communities of color and LGBTs) had been working together as true coalition partners for some time now, there would have been a much smaller gap to close with the preachers (and their flock). An ongoing alliance prior to when you need that vote inevitably makes doing "the ask" much easier.

One of the panelists gave a good illustration of this on an issue long before Prop 8-one Japanese community leader of a fairly moderate-conservative group was approached about a LGBT rights bill by a leader in the LGBT community, and when he surprisingly decided to support the measure, he specifically cited the support by the public support by the gay official for the Japanese internment reparations bill. He made the connection that the gay leader understood oppression aside from his own, and in turn, the Japanese group must stand together with them.

My position has been that race-in particular white discomfort with dealing face to face with communities of color-has inhibited building effective alliances, and it blows up in everyone's faces in instances like Prop 8. I don't have any real answers to this, since it's hard to tell folks in the dominant culture to take a risk they are not used to having to do. Racial minorities are used to the discomfort of being slighted or worse; in order to succeed you have to be well-versed in the ways and culture of the larger society. By and large most white folks don't have to deal with minorities on anything other than a superficial level (how many have relationships with POC that are close enough to have deep conversations about race?), and they certainly aren't required to be steeped in those cultures to get by in society at large.

That doesn't excuse minorities from addressing problems within their own communities at all-those of us who are black and gay have been frustrated with the silence in the pulpits that has allowed HIV/AIDS to flourish among black women. That's still a separate issue from a lack of cross-cultural/cross racial dialogue on a host of issues that's sorely lacking.  

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 08:57:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You know, I understand the white aversion to deal cross-culturally

with the Black churches or clergy - but isn't that more linked to a history of religious segregation in this country than some innate gay white uncomfortability with people of color?

I think it is fine to point out the issues in our own community, but when I read columns like Jasmine Connick (who, apparently, clearly pointed out why same-sex marriage wasn't of interest in the black community and she did little to help bridge that disinterest as a member of that community) I get the feeling that we are not expecting the LGBT minority community to do anything to advocate for themselves because of the "cultural differences." And that irks me to no end.

If we are going to contend that race has nothing to do with attitudes toward civil rights for our community, but other factors within ethnic communities contribute to a large vote against us, then someone inside that community should be leading the charge, don't you think?

We've read on this very blog narratives of LGBT people in minority communities and the difficulties with identity they have - particularly with the attitudes of certain black churches. I don't think we should give any right-wing bigot a free pass because of race, and that includes preachers who went for the fear-and-smear within the Black community. And I don't think we should give a free pass to those LGBT people of color who willingly did nothing (like, apparently, Connick) because she viewed same-sex marriage as a rich white man's gig.

Outreach does go both ways, and I've yet to see any criticism of those LGBT members in that community who wouldn't do their own outreach - or who were willing to confront their own churches. From my understanding, the "No on 8" people did have a working partnership with the NAACP - so what else were they supposed to do? Send white LGBT people into the black churches (where, apparently, there is some strange denial attitude that being gay is only a WHITE thing?) and hope for the best?

And one other thing - that proposition was CLEARLY explained on the ballot. It stated that someone else's RIGHTS were going to be rescinded. Exactly how much education does someone need to understand what that meant?

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 10:27:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Oops...and I believe the name is Jasmyne. . .now Jasmine. My bad

/eom

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 10:28:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

yes, Prop 8 was clearly explained on the ballot

And look how many people of all colors and faiths voted for it anyway. The Mormons and the evangelicals knew that to win, it has to be about obfuscating the truth. It's not enough to know what's right or wrong on a piece of paper, otherwise "marketing" wouldn't exist.

Outreach does go both ways, and I've yet to see any criticism of those LGBT members in that community who wouldn't do their own outreach - or who were willing to confront their own churches. From my understanding, the "No on 8" people did have a working partnership with the NAACP - so what else were they supposed to do?

Well you've certainly seen me complain about the black church here. And the NAACP leadership and many chapters are for marriage equality. There seems to be a disconnect between rank and file blacks and leadership (note the Congressional Black Caucus members on the Hill support marriage equality as well). Again, the black religious community is not a monolith, and not all blacks are churched.

I get the feeling that we are not expecting the LGBT minority community to do anything to advocate for themselves because of the "cultural differences." And that irks me to no end.

Not at all, you don't hear about it because, like most discussion about LGBT issues, action in communities of color are simply not on the radar. The National Black Justice Coalition holds church summits to discuss homophobia in the black church (I've liveblogged one, and they take on the bigots in the pulpit in direct debate), but its work gets little notice and is clearly not adequately funded or partnered with larger LGBT orgs to expand to do the outreach that is needed -- and I put my money where my mouth is and donated.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 10:53:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Other issues may be more pertinent to black LGBTs ...

jobs, public education, access to college, affordable housing, urban reinvestment without evicting / pricing out majority of inhabitants, police relations, and so on.

Marriage gives some benefits to everyone (parental rights not questioned, medical decisions and hospital visitation, etc), but many of the benefits (tax, inheritance) seem abstract to those without much money.

---

by: NancyP @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:25:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And many of those benefits are federal, not state...

Like SS benefits and retirement accounts, etc.

---

by: lyonside @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:44:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So what?

It's quite obvious that preventing couples who wish to from getting married doesn't create jobs or affordable housing.  Why make excuses for bigots?

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 19:42:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Explains why black LGBT who voted No on 8 might volunteer for Obama

or for some other politician that is either progressive or better than the alternative.

Time is finite. If you are a black lesbian mother with a modest income, only able to live in mediocre or bad public school district, whether or not you are in a long-term relationship, your #1-#3 priorities might be the state or local legislator and the school board. Truly, marriage would be less urgent than making sure your child can survive school and not be hopelessly behind the suburban kids' academic level.

---

by: NancyP @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 21:39:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're right about people setting their priorities for activism

I'm thinking of the overall idea of zero-sum politics.

People either vote yes or no on anti-gay ballot initiatives, and there is no rational reason whatsoever to vote yes.  The implied claim that progress for LGBT legislative priorities will somehow suck air from other issues is completely false.

Probably, the opposite is closer to the truth--a rising progressive tide means everybody wins.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 11:47:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

All true, but...

it takes just as much effort to vote no on Prop 8 as it does to vote yes.

---

by: JoshMich @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 01:27:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

reply

"You know, I understand the white aversion to deal cross-culturally with the Black churches or clergy - but isn't that more linked to a history of religious segregation in this country than some innate gay white uncomfortability with people of color?"

NO.

Whatever other factors are at play, you cannot overstate the importance of innate gay white uncomfortability with people of color.

A part of the uncomfortability is dependence on white privilege as a mechanism of protection to counterbalance heterosexism. There is an illusion of safety in this that is difficult to let go of.  

---

by: jbates @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 14:17:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think we can claim that as any more universal

than discounting the number of blacks who voted against Proposition 8.

However, if we already know that much of the Black community views gay civil rights as a "white" issue (and how the "No on 8" people managed to ignore that amazes me)and that LGBT people of color have issues with their identity in both communities, isn't the solution more than just saying it's all a "white" thang?

We can't afford to ignore any group which voted for this heinous amendment, nor give them a free pass because of ethnicity and special cultural circumstances.

I'm assuming you are claiming here there is no history of religious segregation.  

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 18:44:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Which state stirs which bigotry?

http://www.thetaskforce.org/do...

Take a look at the current state of relationship recognition on the above map.

Now let's play the blame game.

For some reason, I just can't get riled up enough to blame blacks for the state of California's relationship recognition.  

Nor can I say the same about blacks for the state of South Dakota's relationship recognition.  Maybe I should blame the Sioux there.

But wait, Iowa is in relatively good shape according to the current state of law.  Isn't there a Sioux tradition/population there?

Can I blame poor white Appalichians for Kentucky?

Can I blame Native American's for Alaska?  

No?  Curses!

Time to look inward and blame....apathetic queers, HRC, messaging, money, timing, these people, those people,

See where that got me?  Nowhere.

Quit playing the blame game.  It'll get you the same place it got me just now.  Nowhere.

---

by: HunterC @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 09:22:28 AM CST

a comment I addressed at Pandagon about building coalitions

there really is no reason to think that working together in coalition will make anti-gay people any less anti-gay.

My response:

I think the only difference we have about this is the level of optimism/pessimism.

I choose to believe that open honest discussion does pay dividends when it comes to homophobia. It doesn't mean that it isn't hard, in fact it's quite difficult.

I liken this to the importance of coming out of the closet. It's not only life-changing for the person in question, but it opens the eyes of homophobic friends, relatives and colleagues who thought they didn't know anyone who was LGBT. Some of them will change how they feel and become less homophobic or release themselves fully from the shackles of homobigotry over time. Others will remain steadfastly bigoted even in the face of a loved one being gay.

In the end it involves risk-taking and a willingness to face rejection. But the fact is we know that people who know someone who is gay is more likely to be supportive of LGBT rights.

I don't see this situation as any different-black gays need to come out of the closet and challenge the homophobia within their communities. And equally important is that the largely pale out LGBT community needs to be open and willing to be supportive of POC coming out - and welcoming into the fold - because many will face rejection and will need that alternative family that will not marginalize them because of race. That supportive environment doesn't yet exist to a large degree because the LGBT community has the same problems with institutionalized racism as the larger society. It isn't about assigning blame from my POV, it's simply a reality we all have to deal with. And based on the fallout from Prop 8, the LGBT community and communities of color have a long way to go.  

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 09:37:29 AM CST

I definitely agree with the supporting POC when they come out

but is that often considered meaningless to POC when they are in a community which already identifies "gay" with "white?"

I know there are many courageous LBGT members who are people of color who are trying to tackle the issues in their communities over the denial of identity. However, the fact remains that when the vote was broken down, this particular ethnic group (of those who voted) - voted in a higher percentage than other ethnic groups to rescind a constitutional right for someone else. I don't think that act should be above criticism, whether it provided the margin for passage or not. Ignoring the fact is more dangerous to our community if we are ever going to hope to get our rights back.

And this isn't about a blame game. Assigning where the "yes" votes came from - and why - is the best way to change minds and votes if we have to go through all of this again. I can fault the "No on 8" folks for not being more aware of the cultural differences in the black community - but I can also fault those people of color who viewed same-sex marriage as a "white" thing.  

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 10:40:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I Read The Op Ed A Bit Differently

I think the Flanagan/Schwarz piece used the purported African American-gay divide to suggest that the "Big Tent" of the Democratic Party is imperiled, and that it is supposedly important to re-focus on the "big" issues like poverty, on which we all can agree, lest the party fracture over purported issues of "identity politics" on which there is disagreement, such as marriage equality for gays and lesbians. In other words, from the flabby premise that some in the Party really don't like gay people, I saw them pushing the meme that gay rights in general and marriage equality in particular are not big or important issues and should be back-burnered for the sake of issues that are. I wrote a letter to the editor to the Times in response saying that, from my vantage point, protecting my relationship with my husband and children is the "big" issue, that I was not going to quietly move to the margins of the party just because others in the supposed Tent diminish the importance of gay rights and that, if they really care about a Big Tent, Democratic Party leaders ought to spend more time trying to get the Party to live up to its rhetoric about commitment to gay rights and less time asking gays and lesbians to wait for equality.

---

by: David Goroff @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 10:55:24 AM CST

Flanagan is a privileged anti-feminist

Caitlyn Flanagan made her mark with articles blaming Upper East Side women professionals, lawyers, doctors, and the like, for employing poor less-educated (often immigrant or black) women as nannies. She claimed that it wasn't real liberation to have women employ women for such personal-service jobs, and  therefore these well-educated women should stay home and be housewives in sisterhood. Nowhere did she mention that the men are parents too and should be taking responsibility for the gruntwork aspect of staying home with young children or sick school-age children, etc. Nor did she mention that the women professionals could pay the nannies a decent salary with Social Security benefits and leave (possibly better than most jobs available to the women), treat them with respect and give them a good letter of reference when they leave.

Flanagan lives in her Upper East Side flat, has kids, has or had a busy and well-off husband (corporate lawyer or some other executive type), and works at home writing. I would be astonished if she didn't have at least part-time service workers in her home. Everyone else in her building and in her acquaintance no doubt employs service workers.

I find it interesting that she only criticized high-level professional working women and not husbands, ordinary middle class or working class women using daycare, or the governmental system that does not make quality day care readily available.

---

by: NancyP @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:17:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pam,

I looked for a place to post comments about that story/opinion or even a letter to the editor, but couldn't find one.  Does anyone know how to do that?

Obviously, we need to address this issue amongst ourselves, but we're preaching to the choir.  All of these points should be summed up in a nice, cohesive, coherent letter to the editor so that the info is right there, next to the bs.

---

by: rhetor1999 @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 10:59:29 AM CST

...

"Did these folks turn in their Negro card when they lost their homophobia?"

I believe once you accept Jesus and do his bidding by depriving homosexuals of their rights, he rewards you by turning your skin white. And then you can get into heaven!

Isn't that what the Mormons say, or does that only work with Native Americans?

---

by: Eshto @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 11:51:12 AM CST

It works for both

That whole "white and delightsome" thing apparently only applies to skin pigment and not the color of the shit they're filled with.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:33:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I've looked at a couple polls and some say Black and Asians were to small a group to poll seperate from Latinos

I can't have much faith in accuracy of these polls.
I also want to see a breakdown based on age of voters, and those who attend church weekly or more often.
Just knowing 57% of Blacks voted for prop 8, doesn't give us useful information. I'd like to find out the percentage of Black men vs. Black women, that may show where outreach is helpful.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:13:41 PM CST

EVERYONE who voted Yes on 8 is responsible!

Thanks for sharing this, Pam. Everyone--regardless of race--who voted for the heinous Proposition 8 is responsible for its passage. Yes, it matters for the queer movement to look at who voted for our marriages and who voted against them. But this constant race-baiting is getting really old. It will not help us in the long run.

Yes, many blacks voted for Prop 8. So did TONS of white people. I am not saying this lets the African-American folks who did vote Yes on 8 off the hook. But why are they MORE responsible than all the other demographic groups who voted in favor of discrimination?

Yes, there are parallels between the queer experience and the black experience--lots of them. And we need to keep exploring those parallels WITH THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO LISTEN AND TALK. I don't think writing off the entire A-A community makes any sense at all. I am fine with writing off the religious right, of which some A-As are members. Their minds cannot be changed. But "gay" and "black" are not mutually exclusive, and I'm tired of folks talking about it in those terms. All this lumping of "African-American voters", both by the NYT article's authors and some of the posters on this thread, is insulting. As Pam pointed out, A-A voters are not a monolithic group, any more than queer voters are (see Log Cabin Republicans). And queer people of color don't stop being queer, or of color, when they enter the ballot box.

---

by: elizabethws @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:16:15 PM CST

White "christians" bankrolled the effort

So why in the flaming blue hell are people still blaming black voters? "Christian" lies, smears, hate, and fearmongering did this to us, and that crap knows no racial boundaries. Whether it was young Hispanic men with tattoos of the Virgin of Guadalupe flashing gang signs during a hate parade (as blogged by Fritz, with pics as proof), or the Mormon Samoan community standing on corners with picket signs, or white evangelicals screaming and throwing things at us on the street, or Catholics funding blatantly false commercials, it all boils down to the same thing: "Christian" desire for power and supremacy. These people are sick and evil.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 12:40:18 PM CST

Dan Savage spent at least a week on his blog blaming-the-blacks after Nov. 4.

His comment section was almost equally divided between people wanting to start lynch mobs in California and other people begging him -- day after day, hour after hour -- to please stop spreading hatred and lies.  I understand he's taken down the original posting, but I wouldn't know since, after I spent a week being one of the people begging him to stop, I finally realized he was a racist and had to stop going to his site.

And he's one of the voices for mainstream LGBT America.  He's one the networks inexplicably book for nearly every news or commentary show that needs a gay spokesperson.  He was also an early cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq and even said if it took the deaths of a lot Iraqis for the US to make its point, that was fine with him.

I say all this to point out that if this is one of our leading self-appointed spokespeople and one of the very few voices LGBTs all over the country hear on a regular basis, what else but this regurgitation of racism can we expect from our own community?

---

by: diablorobotico @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 13:32:45 PM CST

Dan Savage the "voice for mainstream LGBTs"? Can't be right...

I thought that was Ellen.

---

by: NancyP @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 21:43:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Huh...

Are you sure it was Dan Savage, the Onion AV Club sex-advice columnist? Since I don't remember him ever talking about the war in Iraq at all, nor do I know of any blog he writes, unless you mean the column he writes for Seattle's The Stranger.

Frankly, the person you're talking about sounds more like Andrew Sullivan, who was an early cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq (which caused me personally to stop reading his blog, since it got so bad... no matter how much mea culpas he wants to offer up now), and I know he's mentioned fond thoughts of Herrnstein and Murray' bullshit 'Bell Curve' intelligence theory.

'Be yourself, no matter what they say,' -- Sting, 'Englishman in New York'

---

by: Shannon Spencer Fox @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 15:05:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I believed that this was a dead isue

The vote was predicated far more by association with theologically reactionary churches than with any other demographic.

I truly believe that the "blacks are against prop 8" thing came up planted by the religious right to take heat off of themselves and to try and paint the LGBT community as racist.


I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 13:48:20 PM CST