why are african americans so intolerant of others?

For me its personal.. as personal as it is for african americans to see Obama become president.. firstly my post election analysis.. GOOD Obama won.. congrats to him.. we made it happen.. we saw history happen and contributed to it with our support. and good that Mccain lost.. failed bush policies and markets still reeling :(

Having said that.. I want to know why African americans are so intolerant towards other minorities? Why did 80% of AA vote in support of prop8. Why do these people hate people who are different than them?

Tags: African Americans, prop8 (all tags)




there is a way to make a point blogging - and this is not the way to do it.

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 04:08PM | 0 recs

by ragekage 2008-11-07 06:34PM | 0 recs

Is that your little one?

If so, she is far too good for a thread like this.

by BPK80 2008-11-07 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: why are african americans so intolerant of oth

Why do ignorant fools insist on sweeping generalizations of huge, disparate groups of people?

by PantherDem 2008-11-07 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: why are african americans so intolerant of oth


nonetheless, the 70% of african american voters voting for discrimination does make a shocking juxtaposition with the symbolism of Obama's election.

i wouldn't put it the way the poster put it, but....there is an issue here, nonetheless. i really hope Obama leads on this, rather than follow as he has until now.

by CalDem 2008-11-07 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: why are african americans so intolerant of oth

Given how both Obama and Clinton (most of the Democratic Party really) opposed same-sex marriage, why are you surprised that black people would follow the lead of the Democratic Party on this?

What the OP was attacking them for is for not being on the left of the Democratic Party.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-11-07 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: why are african americans so intolerant of oth

This 70% figure is meaningless.

by french imp 2008-11-07 10:35PM | 0 recs
no diary or comment history?

I don't think McCain points can be redeemed for anything. They're more worthless than Confederate dollars.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-11-07 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: no diary or comment history?

actually at least Confederate Dollars are collectible and interesting. McCain points just make you pathetic.

by JDF 2008-11-07 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: why are african americans so intolerant of oth

You do understand that prop 8 was only supported by on group
white women. Every other demographic for Prop 8. So laying this at the feet of one group is a bit unfair. Also the gay community was totally  out messaged out everything on this one. And geographically the no vote was a only along the coast and a pocket up near Tahoe.

Were there is no knowledge, fear and misunderstanding fills the the vacuum.

by jsfox 2008-11-07 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: why are african americans so intolerant of oth

Just curious where you got the info that only white women supported it. I'm not disputing it, I'm just curious because I haven't seen any data that broke down the votes by race and gender.

by LakersFan 2008-11-07 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: why are african americans so intolerant of oth

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results polls#CAI01p1

And allow me to amend 9% of the vote comprised of voters who were not AA, Asian, or Latino also voted no

by jsfox 2008-11-07 04:40PM | 0 recs
Poll numbers


by LakersFan 2008-11-07 10:34PM | 0 recs
CNN exit poll is seriously flawed

please read Nate Silver on exit polls.

This push from the TM is a deliberate attempt to do a divide and conquer number on us all.

Ponder this - AA's are only 6% of the CA population.

Check the counties that voted heavily to bash gay marriage.  

This whole push by Repubs - funded by Mormons is a tactic.

by NeciVelez 2008-11-08 02:51AM | 0 recs
Re: CNN exit poll is seriously flawed

I do understand that exit polls are far south of reliable. However, short of a full poll done by one the polling companies post election it is all we have to go on. So while not an exact picture maybe a fuzzy one that shows us the trend. So I feel comfortable saying that the only group that clearly voted NO on prop 8 were white women. As to what the exact numbers that truly is not to be taken from an exit poll.

by jsfox 2008-11-08 03:59AM | 0 recs
Re: CNN exit poll is seriously flawed

Yup. It looked to me like the number of respondents in that poll was really too small to indicate much.

by LakersFan 2008-11-08 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: why are african americans so intolerant of oth

We couldn't even bother to get out of the bars and out of the gyms to work against this Prop. It's only now that it's to late that we see some, and I mean only some gay men leaving the bars and gyms to protest. Maybe next time white gay men will realize that everything is not going to be handed to them and that they'll actually have to go out and demand their rights.

by venician 2008-11-07 06:20PM | 0 recs
Knock It Off

Enough with the racist bullshit re: African Americans and Prop 8.  Progessives and GLBTs need to figure out why there was little to no minority outreach from the No campaign, and how to do better in the future.  Trying to drive wedges between AAs and other parts of the Democratic tent is unhelpful and divisive.

by Dreorg 2008-11-07 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Knock It Off

NO on 8 lost and that is sad. However, a good portion of why it lost was its ineffective ground game and other campaign problems. I have a lot of hope that they will have learned from this and will get it overturned in court or get a repeal on the ballot in 2010. Hopefully when that happens their campaign will be run in a considerably more effective manner and California will make some intelligent decisions the next time around.

by JDF 2008-11-07 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Knock It Off

Actually, minority outreach was successful among Asians. And the Latino vote was close. So, the question is why did this outreach have one spectacular failure?

by DaleA 2008-11-08 06:15AM | 0 recs

I'm recommending this because it is a valid question.  African Americans overwhelmingly supported prop 8, and it is a hypocritical stance when viewed in conjunction with progressive views and Obama's election.

I fully understand why gays are angry about this, and more attention needs to be drawn to it.

And frankly, it doesn't matter who else supported prop 8.  Of ALL groups, African Americans should be ashamed to have supported it.

by slynch 2008-11-07 04:40PM | 0 recs
i support my GLBT brothers & sisters.

that does not mean that in my outrage and dissapointment that i will support wild sweeping generalizations.

there have been other diaries about this, however this one stinks.  sorry.

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: i support my GLBT brothers & sisters.

but it isn't a sweeping generalization--the vast majority of African Americans supported the ban.  The diarist is angry, and rightfully so.

by slynch 2008-11-07 07:35PM | 0 recs
actually it is a sweeping generalization.

the title of the diary is "why are black people so intolerant of others"

as i said i am disgusted by what happened in CA, FL etc but that does not mean that i support propigating of stereotypes or opinion based as proof of fact.

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: actually it is a sweeping generalization.

It isn't a sweeping generalization when the vast majority of AA's supported the proposition.  That is, unless you believe anything is a sweeping generalization unless it's true of every single member of a group.  As a professor of sociology, I don't think that way.  When the vast majority of a group believe or act in a particular way, it is not a 'sweeping' generalization to characterize the group in that way.  I would say that it doesn't necessarily apply to every single member of the group, but it is broadly applicable to the group.

Anyway, my main point is that the diarist is angry, rightfully so, and I think s/he has a point that should be addressed.  It is shameful that members of an oppressed group would, in large numbers, support the oppression against another group.

by slynch 2008-11-07 07:57PM | 0 recs
Why should black people be

more ashamed?

by Ida B 2008-11-07 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Why should black people be

Oh that's because the negros should be thankful that we finally allowed them to take the oval office.  

by venician 2008-11-07 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Why should black people be

don't impute motives or thoughts to me.  It has nothing to do with what you're saying and everything to do with knowing what it's like to be a member of an oppressed group and STILL voting for oppression of another.

by slynch 2008-11-07 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Why should black people be

But being oppressed doesn't prevent one from an oppressor never has never will. If it did there would be no sexism in the working-class.
As someone who supports gay marriage I assure you we need allies in order for that to happen, shaming all black people for the acts of some black folks is unhelpful at best.

You mean like Joe the plumber and Sarah (the Snowbilly/Wasilla Hillbilly)Palin.

by Ida B 2008-11-07 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Why should black people be

everyone who voted for prop 8 should be ashamed,  but especially members of oppressed groups--they know what it's like to be denied rights.

by slynch 2008-11-07 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: intolerance

by ragekage 2008-11-07 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: intolerance

citation needed for what?  I'm confused.  that 70% of AAs supported prop 8?  That's all over cnn and elsewhere in the thread.

by slynch 2008-11-07 07:41PM | 0 recs
The exit poll is crap.

Diarist is a concern troll.

by NeciVelez 2008-11-08 02:52AM | 0 recs
Please retract your rec

you are falling for troll bait - the entire premise this is based on is one very flawed exit poll by CNN.

Which is a statistical impossibility - please investigate.

AA's are only 6% of CA's population.
A large segment are under voting age.  A huge segment of black males cannot vote.

See this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/7/ 34645/1235

by NeciVelez 2008-11-08 03:08AM | 0 recs
Yes, it is a reasonable question

Even if it has been stated in an inflammatory way.

But, of course, questions like this will be suppressed and villified by the Stalinist element of our party that so proudly bears their inner souls on the left netroots.

They would gleefully pile on Appalachians, any Republican voter, even Asians or Latinos under certain circumstances for being racists but let anyone suggests that there may be some collectivist issues of intolerance in the black community and they'll scream "Fail," "Ban," or "Go to Red State."

by lombard 2008-11-08 07:08AM | 0 recs
I remember you

from the primaries. Troll.

And if my memory serves me correctly, something tells me you're not as thrilled with McCain's loss as you'd like us to believe.

by sricki 2008-11-07 04:59PM | 0 recs
I'm Black and I Voted for Prop. 8

I don't regret my vote; I voted to preserve traditional marriage, not to proliferate hatred and foster discrimination.

I am very aware that LGBT civil rights need to be expanded and protected.

I will never be of the impression, however, that marriage, which is the exclusive, state-sanctioned privilege of men and women to procreate, will ever be a right.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 05:15PM | 0 recs
sorry my head just exploded from this sentence...

I voted to preserve traditional marriage, not to proliferate hatred and foster discrimination.

do you not think that they are not one and the same?  how does allowing LGBT to marry preserve traditional marraige?  or rather how does allowing the LGBT community, as you put it the "exclusive, state-sanctioned privilege" to marry affect you in any way?

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 05:20PM | 0 recs
My answers
  1. No, they're not one in the same because a rebuke is not a statement of hatred.
  2. Gay marriage does not affect me directly; it would change society, and the cascading effect of gay marriage being universally recognized in our schools, churches and private organizations would prove too much.
by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: My answers

As a black man myself I have to say you're pretty full of it.

The fact that you say that allowing Gay marriage would change society the way you describe means that you believe it would change it for the negative and that is being intolerant.

What gives you the right to try and even say that would be a fact? The truth of the matter is the only people that even seem to doesn't seem to link the fact that you don't believe certain people doesn't have the right to something that everybody else can do.

If you wanna say that you're against it, fine. But don't give me that crap that you're not being intolerant.

by JBGolden 2008-11-07 05:39PM | 0 recs

I'm not being intolerant; I'm being faithful to my beliefs.

I don't believe marriage is a right.

Successful marriages from what I've seen have consisted of a man and a woman who love each other and who form and create a family.

But I won't take crap from you or anyone else about my being intolerant; save the insults for Gavin "Whether You Like It or Not" Newsom!

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Intolerant?

The problem here is that in your previous answer you didn't say it was about your faith. You said it would change society. And that's what I called you out on.

I also think I'd have to take umbridge about your line about successful marriages. Are you trying to say that all gay marriages would be unsuccessful? I don't buy it.

When you are trying to use your faith or your views or whatever it is you want to use to impress what you see what should be when it comes to another type of people?

I'm sorry but you are being intolerant.

by JBGolden 2008-11-07 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Intolerant?

Substitute "faithful" for true.

We don't have to talk religion.

With respect to marriage, I can only comment on what I have seen. And plenty of us have been exposed to successful and unsuccessful hetero marriages. Don't twist my words about the qualitative nature of gay marriages.

In response to your final point, should no one be entitled to a belief system (because belief systems set up boundaries)?

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Intolerant?

No one should be allowed to impose their beliefs on other people's actions.  It's a pretty basic point.

You're trying to make it seem like what other people do is infringing on YOUR religious beliefs.  I don't believe you honestly believe that.

by Jess81 2008-11-07 06:26PM | 0 recs
Now wait a minute. Really?

"No one should be allowed to impose their beliefs on other people's actions.  It's a pretty basic point."

Now, I and the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans believe that consensual sex between a 14 year old girl (boy) and a 40 year old man (woman) should be illegal and there are laws throughout these United States imposing our views on those who may believe they have the right to behave otherwise.

My point is that such "rights" cannot exist without some reasonable level of public consensus.  Although I hope the situation I have described above will never become a right I hope gay marriage someday will be.  But, for the majority of America, we aren't quite there yet.

by lombard 2008-11-08 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Now wait a minute. Really?

That's such a dangerous comparison... your example includes a person who is a minor under the law and who we as a society, based on solid psychological evidence that continues to be reviewed and criticized, has concluded is not able to make these kinds of life-altering decisions yet.  They're incomparable situations.

The core issue is that equal marriage hurts no-one, which can't be said for your example.  That's why it baffles me so much that there's still so much opposition - equal marriage hurts no-one.

by auronrenouille 2008-11-08 04:25PM | 0 recs
OK, here are some better examples, then

Having more than one spouse (even if all in the family live together in harmony) is illegal in this country.  Nothing wrong with that in numerous other societies around the world. And, after all, who is that hurting (in your words)? That was also once practiced by members of the Mormon church (still is in some places illegally) but has been illegal among them for many, many years - that was part of the deal of Utah statehood.  So, the rest of us impose our views.

Used to be legal throughout many of the states for 18 year olds to drink.  No longer.  The views of others were imposed against them (and against the laws of the states).  And, by the way, all of the Democratic candidates in 2008 (who one would presume are at least a little liberal) except for Gravel declined to offer any support for allowing these laws to be changed when this question was posed at a debate.  During the 70s there were multiple states that passed significant decriminalizations of marijuana laws but those liberal initiatives were rolled back within a decade.

One might question whether my original example was as extreme as you indicate.  In some cultures, there would be nothing illegal about someone 35 marrying someone 15 or 16 (Indeed the idea wasn't always so extreme and illegal here in the USA - Remember Jerry Lee Lewis?).

These things are considered repugnant to enough people in the USA that they remain illegal and that is the way societies work.  Wishing they would work some other way (for example, allowable civil liberties are determined by a council of enlightened liberals) simply isn't realistic.  

Gay marriage is just considered repugnant by too many people here in the USA for widespread legalization.  Someday (maybe in the near future) that will no longer be the case.

by lombard 2008-11-09 03:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Intolerant?

your arguments here are unbelievable.

There is no way you can possibly claim you aren't being intolerant.  You're saying you don't tolerate marriage between homosexuals.  Period.  There's no way around it.

Marriage isn't a right?  Why not?  Just because viewing it as a right doesn't sit conveniently with your religious views?

Your religious views aren't mine, so they shouldn't bind what I can and cannot do.

And you're simply FULL OF SHIT if you think the best examples of marriage are among heterosexuals.  Studies--not your little anecdotes--show that homosexual families are just as strong and loving as heterosexual ones.

And this is all from a heterosexual man who is in his third marriage.

by slynch 2008-11-07 07:47PM | 0 recs
I hate to do this, but....

Gay marriage does not affect me directly; it would change society, and the cascading effect of gay marriage being universally recognized in our schools, churches and private organizations would prove too much.

Is this snark?

Serious question.

If snark, I really think you need to reconsider your timing. This is a pretty sensitive issue for a lot of us, and it really isn't an appropriate thing to joke about. If not snark, please provide me with some research which indicates that gay marriage would "prove too much" for our society. Some cold, hard data would be appreciated. I'm sure you'll get those links to me quickly -- because if you have no evidence to support your assertion that gay marriage would wreak havoc on our oh-so-fragile society, I can only assume you're a bigot, and that would be a real pity.

by sricki 2008-11-07 05:43PM | 0 recs
Since Everyone Is Ganging Up on Me

I'll turn the tables.

How often do you go to church?

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 05:50PM | 0 recs
That's hardly your concern.

But I see you can provide no evidence for your ridiculous assertion. It's just sad, intolerant hyperbole.

So. Just another bigot. Lovely.

by sricki 2008-11-07 05:56PM | 0 recs
If anyone's a bigot it's you

You won't engage me honestly, other than attacking my thoughtful answer, first, as snark and then asking for cold, hard data on my own beliefs.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 06:02PM | 0 recs
I did engage you honestly,

asking for evidence is hardly a "bigoted" request. You are sidestepping the issue because you lack an appropriate response.

But for the record -- as for how often I attend church services -- I am a deist. Do the math.

by sricki 2008-11-07 06:08PM | 0 recs
Thank you for answering that

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 06:15PM | 0 recs
Your sig line is extremely ironic don't you think?

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-07 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Since Everyone Is Ganging Up on Me

you aren't turning the tables.  how's this:

How often do I force you not to go to church?

by slynch 2008-11-07 07:49PM | 0 recs
This Is Sensitive for All of Us

I answer this below, but if gay marriage is recognized by the State, then there is no way that a church or other organization could refuse to marry a gay couple without it being construed as a political statement, thus setting up that organization for losing its tax-exempt status.

Their would be no flavor to society anymore because all societies, organizations and churches would be forced to eventually concede on the gay marriage issue, instead of offering a difference of opinion on the subject as they do now.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 06:13PM | 0 recs
You know,

it used to be illegal for African Americans to marry whites. Would we be better off if there was a bit more "flavor" in our society if all societies, organizations, and churches hadn't had to concede on the black/white marriage issue?

by sricki 2008-11-07 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: This Is Sensitive for All of Us

"there is no way that a church or other organization could refuse to marry a gay couple without it being construed as a political statement" - a Lie.
No church is forced to marry people of a different religeous congregation, or a couple who do not fit the particular religion's rules.

No rabi was ever forced to mary two gentiles, and vice versa...

Every denomination has its own mariage rules and those are legal and observed in the US.

by lolo08 2008-11-07 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: This Is Sensitive for All of Us

I attend a fairly liberal Reform synagogue where the Temple has decided as a community that it doesn't perform marriages between Jews and non-Jews.  Yet the FIrst Amendment continues to protect that right - it simply doesn't afford County Hall, a Government entity, the same consideration.

Your arguments are outright lies, and people ought to be troll-rating you for spouting them.

by auronrenouille 2008-11-08 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: This Is Sensitive for All of Us

Er, my above reply was directed at the sputtering hate-monger, not lolo08, clearly. ;p

by auronrenouille 2008-11-08 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: This Is Sensitive for All of Us

This is a complete lie.

Every church and religious organization gets to choose what weddings they will and will not perform, sanction, or allow on their property. Many Mormons can't even get married in a Mormon temple.

There is nothing about gay marriage that will force any church to modify their own rules for what marriages they perform or sanction. Stop repeating these ridiculous lies.

by LakersFan 2008-11-07 10:46PM | 0 recs
Re: I hate to do this, but....

It's not snark.  This individual has been parroting the same "Just because I'm bigotted doesn't mean I'm a bigot" BS for a while now.

by Dreorg 2008-11-07 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: My answers

it would change society, and the cascading effect of gay marriage being universally recognized in our schools, churches and private organizations would prove too much.

It is true that once society recognizes something, it recognizes it. But that's a circular argument for being against it.

Can you give examples of what, specifically, will be detrimental to a society when the fundamental equality of gay and straight couples is recognized by that society?

By the way, you may not be aware that in the 20th century, there were many arguments made by well-educated people in widely read newsmedia, about the grave danger of allowing inter-racial marriages in the United States. It would supposedly weaken our nation through the effect of "mongrelization".  This was of course, nonsense, but it was fiercely believed by opponents of inter-racial marriage, at that time.

by Rob in Vermont 2008-11-07 05:48PM | 0 recs
I Like Your Logic

It is true that once society recognizes something, it recognizes it.

All aspects of society, even organizations, educational institutions and churches, which may be pre-disposed to oppose gay marriage, would have to recognize the unquestioned and sovereign nature of gay marriage, even if they're opposed to it.

Talk about liberties being trampled upon!

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I Like Your Logic

You mean privileges, not liberties.  You're still allowed to behave and believe anyway you like - what you're NOT allowed is to force your own status to be elevated above other people.  You want other people to live as second class citizens.

Listen: I understand the impulse of people who want to maintain elite status.  It's almost a historical constant.  Just don't pretend that it's anything other than that.

by Jess81 2008-11-07 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I Like Your Logic
So what gives you and your church the right to force your beliefs down my throat?
Isn't equality a right?
by skohayes 2008-11-08 02:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I Like Your Logic

Please, cite me a case where Massachusetts or another state has required churches to conduct gay marriage.

If you're going to spout the Catholic Charities adoption nonsense, save me - that was a special situation whereby Catholic Charities was acting as an arm of the government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts because of a quirk of history.

by auronrenouille 2008-11-08 04:30PM | 0 recs
thank you for your honesty...

however it would seem that your ideas are a bit out of sorts.  a rebuke in this case is a statement of hatred to those who just want equal rights.

as to your second point - im unsure why you would feel that it would have affect at all on society. (other than to make gay people equal under the law)

now the most troubling part of your comment to me is:

Gay marriage does not affect me directly

now im not sure what this means - is it that you are not gay?  if so - neither am i.  however it DOES affect you.  you are a member of a society that has just made a big bad bold statment to gay people of the US that says "F you"

im actually stunned.

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 05:51PM | 0 recs
Thanking me

You're welcome.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 06:00PM | 0 recs
were you planning on addressing....

the rest of my comment?

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 06:01PM | 0 recs
He has no answer, don't get your hopes up, CG. n/t

by sricki 2008-11-07 06:10PM | 0 recs

A rebuke like Prop. 8 represents an opportunity for all Caifornians to engage in a new dialogue which, first, does not involve the courts, and two, does not involve a concept like marriage which, in a modern sense, has a religious derivation.

EXAMPLE: At some point, a gay couple somewhere would demand that their church marry them. If the church were to refuse, it could be sued and lose its tax-exempt status. Therefore, no church could continue to be Bible-based, but instead would have to abide by what the State tells it is acceptable.

And no, I don't believe I'm saying "F you." I'm saying, "Don't go there."

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 06:09PM | 0 recs
first of all...

your point about churches is off base.  im not fully versed in prop 8, but i am pretty certain that it does force the church to preform marriges.

and your point that marraige is a "religious derivation" is just not accurate.  let me give you an example:  i got married at a hotel by a rabbi.  whereby i signed a jewish marraige licence.  prior to that, i had to go down to the city hall and get a marraige licence.  upon signing my religious licence, i then had to present my civic licence to my rabbi to sign.  see - 2 different things.

and lastly - it may not seem like an "F you" to you - but just ask any gay person how they feel about this - hint:  its not v. good.

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: first of all...

What you didn't know this was happening in Massachusetts? I heard straight married couples were getting divorced by the tens of thousands and the birth rate fell 75%, their are riots in the streets nightly all because two people made a vow to love one another.  

by venician 2008-11-07 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: first of all...

your comment is perfect.  why on god's green earth would anyone oppose this issue?  honestly it makes me want to scream.

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 06:34PM | 0 recs

"does force"

That's my point!

There is societal derivation of marriage, which Western countries adopted and promulgated to promote families, etc.

I can't presume to know how the LGBT community in CA felt this week; but I do know that there's greater oppotunity for all groups, blacks included, to come to a greater understanding of the need to expand civil rights--absent marriage--of the LGBT community.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 06:32PM | 0 recs
im highly confused by you zeitgeist.

you agree that civil rights need be expand for all, but exclude gay marraige from that based on the idea that its an institution for procreation????

sorry but it makes little sense.

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 06:37PM | 0 recs

The institution of marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman.

All the rights of marriage, like the emergency room issues, inheritance, etc., should be extended to gay couples.

I think most of the other people who voted for Prop. 8 believe the same thing or are coming around to believing the same thing....

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Marriage

my head is hurting.  your logic makes no sense to me.  sorry.

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Marriage

That sounds like seperate but equal to me.

by democratunc 2008-11-07 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Mistake?

Traditional marriage involves the exchange of a dowry as the symbolic purchase of the wife.  Oftentimes, "traditional marriage" involved multiple women and a dude. It was an exchange of property and a method of passing out the cheese when the dude bit it.

"Traditional marriage" is a little fucked up.  The modern conception of marriage--that government has a duty to respect the contract made between two people who pledge their life to each other--is the far more nobler convention.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-07 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Mistake?

Oh so you will "allow" us to love each other but just not allow us to make a commitment to each other and receive equal rights and privileges that marrige would bring? Oh brother not another closeted self hating homophobe like yellowdem!

by venician 2008-11-07 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Respond

You're wrong.

Churches refuse to marry couples all the time.  The Catholic Church will not marry anyone who is divorced.  Many churches will not perform interfaith marriage.  This is all perfectly legal, and protected under the 1st amendment.  

Proposition 8 was about the civil institution of marriage, which is 100% separate from any church performing rites of matrimony.  The strawman argument about churches being forced to perform gay marriages is an out and out lie.

by Dreorg 2008-11-07 06:25PM | 0 recs
Not a Lie

1. The Catholic Church will marry divorced people. The previous marriages have to annuled, among other processes and rites, etc.
2. Which churches don't perform interfaith marriage?

Get your facts straight before you start attacking.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 06:28PM | 0 recs

orthodox and most conservative rabbis/temples will not preform interfaith marraiges.

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: ahem...

Define interfaith in this case.

In this case, would the Gentile be a non-Jew by birth or a non-practicing Jew?

The reason I ask is that if one of the people being married says they don't believe in the the Jewish God or practice Judaism, then, yes, that would be an acceptable reason for a Rabbi to not marry them.

However, if a professing Christian gay couple were refused marriage in a situation where gay marriage is legal, then that refusal would be unlawful because both of the people being married profess belief in the God of that church.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: ahem...

in this case it would be a non-jew by birth with a jew.  however - if one was to convert to judaism then it would be allowed.

and this precisely proves the point that religion is irrelevant in this issue.  today marraige is a civil union.  if i want to get a divorce from my husband then i need to get both a civil divorce (the state) and a religious divorce through a rabbi.  see?  two separate things.

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 06:47PM | 0 recs

A practicing Jew and a non-Jew being married would not be "interfaith" to a Rabbi. It would be heretical, apostate.

As far as I know for Protestant Christians (I'm a better expert there), one does not need to return to their Pastor and get an annulment or divorce decree. It would simply be processed through the State.

So the idea that religion is irrelevant doesn't apply here because the religious basis I'm referring to is Scripture, both in the New and Old Testaments, referring to sexual behavior.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Interfaith

listen - i am not going to get into a religious debate with you.  

its really quite simple - you as a (insert religion here) are allowed, free, and encouraged to believe what you want with regard to marraige - THAT DOES NOT GIVE YOU, ME OR ANYONE ELSE the right to tell others how they should live their lives.

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 06:58PM | 0 recs
Prop. 8 Does Not Tell Anyone Anything

Prop. 8 preserved what always was, that's all.

IN fact, I think that both sides will come away from this better educated about the other, and that's the most important lesson of them all.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Interfaith

And you're actually arguing my and GG's point for us.

Said Rabbi is not legally obligated to by the state to perform interfaith marriages.  Nor will any temple loose its tax-exempt priveliges for exercising said right not perform said marriages.

by Dreorg 2008-11-07 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Interfaith

He wouldn't lose his tax-exempt status because he would be refusing marriage to someone OUTSIDE his faith.

He would be entitled to do so because he is part of a private organization?

Don't you get it?

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Interfaith

Whether they are of the same faith as the institution in question is immaterial to the right of the religious institution and the religious official to decide who they want to marry.

Right now, all churches in the US can marry who they choose.  Unitarian Universalists, Reformed Jews, United Church of Christ, Quakers, etc., will all perform rites of matrimony for same-sex couples, today, right now, in any state.  Said rites are completely 100% separate from any civil contract of marriage.

Whether or not gay marriage is the law of the land, that will not change.  Period.  The right to decide who to perform rites of matrimony for is protected by the 1st Amendment separation of church and state.


No church, no minister, no denomination will face any legal ramifications for refusing to perform the rites of matrimony for a same-sex couple.  Just like no rabbi has ever been fined for refusing to peform the rites of matrimony for a Jew and a non-Jew.  Just like the Catholic Church has never lost its tax exempt status for refusing to marry a divorced person.

You've created a strawman that has ZERO validity.

by Dreorg 2008-11-07 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Interfaith

A practicing Jew and a non-Jew being married would not be "interfaith" to a Rabbi. It would be heretical, apostate.

Jews come in as many flavors as Protestants--some act like the Amish, some act like the Baptists, some act like Pentecostals and some act like the Unitarians.  Your blanket statement is factually incorrect.

So the idea that religion is irrelevant doesn't apply here because the religious basis I'm referring to is Scripture, both in the New and Old Testaments, referring to sexual behavior.

Doesn't the old testament rank gay sex right around the same level of sin as eating Oysters Rockefeller?  The Book says I shouldn't work on the Sabbath or pray to graven images or let my stay wife in the house when her Aunt Flow is visiting, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let somebody write laws condemning them.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-07 07:06PM | 0 recs

canadian gal, I like you because you talked to me honestly and openly, without insults.

And I hope I've treated you the same way.

If this were Daily Kos, my comments would have been deleted from the beginning, but you've been willing to listen. I like that.

There are myriad reasons why the Yes side won, including bigotry, hate, self-denial, etc., but I'm just trying to get you to understand why the faith-based community backed this proposition to the extent it did.

That's all!

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Listen

yes - i appreciate your honesty as i said above and do believe that progress is made through debate and discussion.

that said - "the faith-based community" has no place in government.  while everyone should be free to practice his or religion freely, it has no place in a free and fair society. ALL should be equal under the law.

and you - as an american - should feel lucky for that.  us canadians are not guaranteed this right.

by canadian gal 2008-11-07 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: ahem...

A divorsed women and a Cohen would not be maried by any orthodox rabi on earth. That simple.
(and please lets not go into why :).

So no, no orthodox rabi would be forced by any law to mary a gay couple.

by lolo08 2008-11-07 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a Lie

"1. The Catholic Church will marry divorced people. The previous marriages have to annuled, among other processes and rites, etc."

In other words, the Catholic Church does not marry divorced people.  They do not recognize those marriages to be legitimate.  And in 2000 years, no one has EVER forced them to.

by Jess81 2008-11-07 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a Lie

Yes, it is a lie.  And if you continue to propogate it here, I will downrate it for trolling from now on.  I have not downrated your misguided intolerant bigoted opinions denying the inherent inequalities of 'separate but equal,' as distasteful as they are, but I will not tolerate spreading lies.

by Dreorg 2008-11-07 06:52PM | 0 recs
Get a life

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Get a life

Oooooh!  Do we get to play "I'm rubber, you're glue" now!?!  Yay!

by Dreorg 2008-11-07 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a Lie

The Catholic Church will marry divorced people. The previous marriages have to annuled, among other processes and rites, etc.

Indeed, you have proved your opponent's point, which is that churches of course have their own sets of rules they use to determine who they will marry.

This right is not effected in the least by the state allowing gay couples to obtain civil marriage licenses, which are an invention of the state, not a religious document.  

You are simply wrong in your belief that a church in America can ever be forced to grant a marriage to any couple who the church believes does not qualify to be married according to its religious rules.  This type of imposition by the state upon church rules is impossible under our nation's constitution.  No such "law suit" that you fear would ever occur; it would be laughed out of court.  

by Rob in Vermont 2008-11-07 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Not a Lie

Plenty. Including Mormons. As a non-Christian, I can't get married to anyone in MOST churches.

Why do you keep repeating these lies?

by LakersFan 2008-11-07 10:55PM | 0 recs
Re: My answers

by ragekage 2008-11-07 06:36PM | 0 recs
Too Cute!

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 06:41PM | 0 recs
Lost Cause, CG

If you want to bang your ahead against the wall of Zeitgeist, I won't stop you.  However, It's an exercise in futility.  He's been parroting the same stuff for months.  

by Dreorg 2008-11-07 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Lost Cause, CG

It's true.

In my experience, most people, when they get used to the idea of gay people, and recognize it as a phenotype like the eye color, have an epiphany.  And then there are people who want to maintain their privileged positions in society - you don't waste your time with them.

by Jess81 2008-11-07 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Black and I Voted

At one time 'traditional' marriage in these United States was something that black man and a black woman could not do.
Until 1967 'traditional' marriage between a black person and a white person was a crime.

Separate and equal is not equal, ultimately the state will either have to hand over the word  marriage to the world of religion(gay,straight everyone has a civil union} or religious will simply have to share the term.

by Ida B 2008-11-07 06:12PM | 0 recs
lol wut

I will never be of the impression, however, that marriage, which is the exclusive, state-sanctioned privilege of men and women to procreate, will ever be a right.

The irony.  The horrible horrible irony.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Quote: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

by JJE 2008-11-07 06:14PM | 0 recs

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 06:26PM | 0 recs

Try making an actual argument.

by JJE 2008-11-07 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Black and I Voted for Prop. 8

I will never be of the impression, however, that marriage, which is the exclusive, state-sanctioned privilege of men and women to procreate, will ever be a right.

Of course infertile couples are allowed to marry, so your definition of marriage already doesn't seem to apply to marriage in America.

Putting that aside, it is certainly true that marriage laws in America do have certain restrictions that prevent any and all couples from getting a marriage license; these rules include age restrictions, kinship restrictions, and the prohibition against marrying more than one person at a time.  But these very same restrictions can be applied to gay couples, and indeed these very same restrictions are applied to gay couples (for example the civil union law in Vermont has exactly the same age restrictions, kinship restrictions, and polygamy restrictions as our marriage law.)

The right that gay couples in Vermont are currently denied is the right to get a "marriage" license. They can get a "civil union" license instead.  The state has created this special license, for this minority, in order to provide "equality under the law."

The civil union law was a well-intentioned compromise at the time, and it had the good effect of extending many of the same rights to gay couples as straight have in our state. None of the bad things, the slippery slope, predicted at the time by its opponents have materialized. We proved the sky will not fall, just as Massachusetts and other places in the world are proving that a different type of license is not needed for this minority; the same license can be used for straight and gay couples.

Creating a "separate but equal" license is wrong. I liken this to, say, a motor vehicle law which says that only non-Jews can obtain a standard registration certificate for their car, while Jews must apply for a similar certificate that doesn't use the word "registration", simply because some members of society believe firmly that the word "registration" should only be applied to property owned by non-Jews.

by Rob in Vermont 2008-11-07 06:41PM | 0 recs
I Like Your Answer

You seem to argue for civil unions, which I'm for, for gay men and women, and then to argue against them in that they're not marriage.

So, you're saying that even though Vermont has fully incorporated all the rights of marriage without actually calling a civil union marriage, this is still wrong because it's not marriage.

I don't agree with you then.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-11-07 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I Like Your Answer

All marriages are essentially civil unions with an option "faith" component.  The government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business, the church (however you may define it) should.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-07 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: I Like Your Answer

Yes, it is wrong to have two different licenses, even if they purport to provide exactly the same legal rights.  As I mentioned, it is like the state having a "Registration Certificate" for non-Jews to obtain when they buy a car, while having a "Motorized Conveyance Ownership Certificate" that Jews must obtain.  Even if the two certificates purport to give the same legal rights, it is wrong to have one certificate for non-Jews and one certificate for Jews, in order to satisfy the beliefs of those people who think the word "registration" should be used exclusively for non-Jewish car owners.

by Rob in Vermont 2008-11-07 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: I have a solution to this problem

Notice how you never get a response to this question? I've asked it many times too and gotten the same non-response. I've concluded it's just a smokescreen. They wouldn't be happy if "marriage" was truly defined by religious organizations because then Unitarians and other religions would still be able perform "marriages". The fact is, hhey don't just want to impose their faith on the "legal" definition of marriage, they want to impose it on other religious organizations too.

by LakersFan 2008-11-07 11:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I still haven't

You won't get an answer to that one either. There's no rationale behind this other than hatred and bigotry. You can't get an honest answer because people like that are lying about their motives.

by LakersFan 2008-11-07 11:25PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Black and I Voted for Prop. 8

I assume you will also support a referendum eliminating all divorce as well, which is a much graver "threat" to the sanctity of marriage than two same sex individuals trying to enter into a loving committed relationship.

By the way, the EXACT same language you're using was utilized by bigots opposed to interracial marriage.  Hope that makes you feel good.  

Finally, no one is ever going to force religious organizations to recognize gay marriage.  The Catholic church still doesn't recognize marriages for folks who have gotten divorced unless they get church approval.  So that fear is completely made up.  

by HSTruman 2008-11-07 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm Black and I Voted for Prop. 8

Marriage is a right, as the Supreme Court declared after Barack Obama was a 6 year old boy and his parents had gone their separate ways.

BTW - since you state that the purpose of marriage is to procreate, why should the state allow post-menopausal women or infertile men to marry?

by Khun David 2008-11-07 08:36PM | 0 recs
why are people so intolerant ?

As a young black woman I wondered why South Boston Irish-Americans rocked school buses screamed curses and called children niggers.These were the children and grandchildren of people who knew what is was like to be despised..."no dogs or Irish allowed". Don't they know better? Shouldn't they be more empathetic? I wondered why about Jews,Italian-Americans and poor white people from Appalachia.

I don't know why people are so intolerant,but then I don't know why people are willing to do so more than simply tolerate. We give willing time money health love blood all to the cause of equality.

by Ida B 2008-11-07 05:36PM | 0 recs

Why are you so pissed at black folks in particular? Did you think there was a quid pro quo? I would love a clearer understanding of how you arrived at your conclusion.

Facts Belie the Scapegoating of Black People for Proposition 8
http://myleftwing.com/showDiary.do;jsess ionid=9874480084675B3B3303E7B80DE72B9D?d iaryId=23580

by Ida B 2008-11-07 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: PS

More likely than not, this guy's a troll, probably of the GOP sort. Ignore 'im, people are being stupid- as people generally do. I don't know how this stereotype got started, but it's asinine.

by ragekage 2008-11-07 06:22PM | 0 recs
Shanikka's diary is a good read

thanks for linking.

by NeciVelez 2008-11-08 02:56AM | 0 recs
Re: PS

Well yes, being in a coalition is a quid pro quo. Gay people have supported black politicians for decades. Virtually every urban elected official relies on the support of gay people. Mayors like Harold Washington, David Dinkums and Wellington Webb are examples. The feeling I have is that black people have reneged on the deal; they have tossed away the past support they received and voted against the cause of their coalition partners. Welching on a deal is not a helpfull move.

by DaleA 2008-11-08 06:44AM | 0 recs
Just to clarify what you said

I'm a black person in PA. You're saying that the fraction of blacks who voted for this amendment in CA nullify the history of the black and gay communities in PA?

Every black person is to blame for this?

Here's a thought: I condemn Californians, for your damnable attempts at Athenian democracy, which always disappoint. You have and pass far too many laws.

Surely, if blacks are to share the blame, Californians must share it also.

by Neef 2008-11-08 08:04AM | 0 recs
Why doesn't the diarist go

screw himself?

by Geekesque 2008-11-07 06:06PM | 0 recs

Hunk of shit like this on the REC list?  Wow, just like the good old days.

by fogiv 2008-11-07 06:07PM | 0 recs

Dude, you went full Trig.

Never go full Trig.

by ragekage 2008-11-07 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Yawn

how is your kid?

by Ida B 2008-11-07 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Yawn

Why, she's just peachy. Thanks for asking!

by ragekage 2008-11-07 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Yawn

That's a cute kid there.

by Jess81 2008-11-07 06:41PM | 0 recs

It certainly helps make up for the fact she loves to destroy my house. She takes after her mom that way, I suppose. ;)

by ragekage 2008-11-07 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Yawn

she is beautiful, thanx for the pic.

by Ida B 2008-11-07 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Yawn

Probably better than the kid who's named after the subject his mom failed 4 different times between 6 different colleges.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-07 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: why are african americans so intolerant of oth

Because they've been left alone, ignored, separated; abandoned to suffer the consequences of a culture primarily informed by feudal religiosity, incarceration, and brutal hatred.  What did you expect them to learn?  When you lock a child in an academy of pain and don't even care that there are no teachers...

by Endymion 2008-11-07 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: why are african americans so intolerant of oth

true in part. Like poor whites who tend to be closed minded, many blacks, who are largely economically downscale are also less open socially. But now, the young ones finally have a role model other than a rapper or baller, someone with our views. Obama may be the best thing to happen to the blacks since MLK

by Lakrosse 2008-11-07 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: why are african americans so intolerant of oth

First of all: Screw you.

Secondly: Historically African Americans have been much more willing to vote for that particular minority called "white men" than white men had been willing to vote for African Americans. So screw you again.

Thirdly: Pretty much all of the leaders of the Democratic Party oppose same-sex marriage, including Obama, Biden and Clinton, opposed same-sex marriage. If you want to bash someone for opposing same-sex marriage, why don't you bash these supposedly progressive leaders first, and use your racism to bash on minorities later?

Or do Biden and Clinton get a pass because they're white people that oppose same-sex marriage, but black people opposing same-sex marriage is a no-no?

Fourth: Social conservatism in minorities in a real issue that you won't get to solving by being a fucking racist. What you'll end up doing instead is drive minorities to the hands of the Republican party, showing that you have contempt for them and that you demand from them the sort of ideological obedience that you don't seem to be demanding from white Democrats.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-11-07 06:40PM | 0 recs

I can't silence someone's opinion, but i can respectfully ask that this "diary" at least be unrecommended. This is not helpful.

by Scan 2008-11-07 06:59PM | 0 recs
there is real tragedy and pain

I Live I Fl And am gay and Angry that Bigoted Christians White Black and Brown felt it was there Duties. Im 51 and have lived through the loss of 20 Friends to Aids one being my partner of 12 yrs when he died i thought I would be Ok we had made plans but guess what it was usless and i lost everything and was not allowed to attend his funeral thats why things like this prop 8 and admendment 2 in florida are cruel and those that voted for it are the lowest forms of preadators in our Society and the saddest part the party i been in all my life says nothin not one Fucking thing so thats says a lot right now i have no joy only regret Helping and voting for Barak obama its not his fault i no but it was the day I was made a second class citizen Peace to all hope you never have to feel like this really and for those that have I'm so Sorry.

by tpagy 2008-11-07 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: there is real tragedy and pain
Your partner and your friends are all in a peaceful place surrounded by love and acceptance. You are as well but there just aren't as many living angels as there should be. People who are cruel are usually the ones in the most pain. They also typically don't understand that religious texts are not laws, they are guidance used to grow. I guess those who believe that homosexuality is an abomination just gloss over the parts where women are forbidden to wear red or adulterers get stoned. In most faiths, women are to be completely subservient to the man in an exclusive heterosexual relationship. She is property, much like the institution of slavery. Unfortunately, they don't get that, or they actually support it.

There is lots more in religious texts that people use to justify their laziness and ignorance, as much as they use them as a source of comfort or control.Blame the real enemy, not someone's race. If you do that, all the gay and lesbian people of all races get an extra special dose of hatred and burden dumped on them and you haven't gotten to the real problem.

by Jeter 2008-11-07 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: there is real tragedy and pain

Oh poor gay white man now knows what it feels like to be discriminated against and marginalized. Funny I never saw you white boys speaking out about the unfair treatment of gay people of color or wondering why the bars were so segregated. I am sorry for your loss and even more sorry for your gigoted views, but remember this you are still not the lowest of the lowest in American society....a gay person of color.

by venician 2008-11-08 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: why are americans

the question is why are people so intolerant of others. Even those who are tolerant have places of intolerance.

The answer is likely fear and bonding.

We cling to those like us who confirm our own sense of ourselves, and we bond by hating the same people?  

This is hardly an African American phenomenon, it' human.

Ask yourself why you single out a group of people who are the 'same' only in skin color?  You could choose any 'group' and define them as 'the same,' and then attribute something to them as a group, and that would maybe be because or fear and bonding.  

by anna shane 2008-11-08 07:40AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads