On Prop 8, and scapegoats.

[pecunium]

The "black vote" didn't pass Prop 8.

We have a black population of about 6 percent. Assume they all voted, that's about 1.9 millon people. Assume all of them (whch isn't the case, but bear with me)are of voting age, and all of them voted, and the 70 percent of the black vote was pro 8 is true.

That's 1.3 million votes. Last I checked the prop was passing by about 500,000 votes. But... about 600,000 of those 1.9 million are under the age of 18. And, sadly, a large percentage of that population is in prison right now, and not eligible to vote. so we can lop another 190,000 votes (with a conservative estimate of 10 percent of black either in prison, or on parole).

That gives us about 750,000 votes, assuming (arguendo) all the blacks in the state who are eligible are registered.

The amendment is ahead by about 500,000 votes. Ok, if every black in the state voted no, then the amendment would be dead.

There are 17 million registered voters in Calif. The stats say black are registered at about the same rate as other groups, so we can probably figure they are registered at, call it 60 percent (because Obama was certainly something of an in-group identifier, much as a the home state of a national candidate is expected to have a larger turnout in their favor).

Take those votes we tallied up and adjust for that number.... 525,000.

So yes, the total number of votes which have it ahead is almost exactly equal to the black voting population.

But there are an awful lot of white folks who voted, and a lot of hispanics too.

My neighbors account for at least two of the vote for. They are white. A really small percentage shift of the white vote would have made the difference. The absentee ballots (which are not, traditionally, black, but rather white folks) aren't reversing the trend.

The whole of the polity voted, the whole of the polity takes the rap. The white folks (and it was a whole lott a white folks spending the money to flood the airwaves with the ads equating a vote againt 8 with a vote for religious intolerance) voted for it. The hispanics voted for it, the asians voted for it.

Yeah, we might be justified in pointing fingers if the black population were the only group which voted for it. Even if we call it 70 percent of the black population who voted for it, that's only 20 points (roughly) more than the percentage of whites who voted for it.

Which means the part which matters is that differential; the actual EXTRA votes of the black population is about 150,000; and that's if every one who is registered actually showed up to vote.

Which means everyone else is to blame for, at least, 350,000 votes.

It's not their fault.

Comments

[urox.livejournal.com]

Blacks had the highest percentage of minorities voting Yes, but 30% still voted No according to exit polls.
http://disgrasian.blogspot.com/2008/11/disgrasian-of-weak-blaming-black-voter.html
I don't see how anyone can blame an entire race with so many ACTIVELY voting No and, as you point out, other races also not strongly voting in the No majority.

Prop 8 lost because of the lack of outreach and misunderstanding, but it should be looked into why so many blacks voted Yes. What I've heard of is that it was more prop8 supporters sending out false statement fliers.

[edit] I do have to amend my post with the fact that African Americans are the ONLY ones I've seen doing public postings about being offended at prop 8 having been called a civil rights issue. And all I can do is tell them that I'm a minority, that civil rights weren't fought for just African American rights, that my marriage and that of many in my family would be illegal 60 years ago, and that I recognize this as a civil rights issue. 'Cause when I tell them that they're an embarrassment to minorities fighting everywhere to only claim rights for African Americans, they go off the deep end. :P

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

See, that's my concernt, why DID so many blacks and Hispanics vote yes? Even if they couldn't have changed it, why, when looked at it that way, were they so likely to discriminate against people like that? (If the numbers I read were right.)

[urox.livejournal.com]

The Hispanic vote I could more understand. It's a heavily religious population (there are very few Caucasians I know that actually have pictures of Mary and Christ on their walls, but I know a *lot* of Hispanics that do) and so if they believe god is telling them homosexuality is a sin, they'll vote against validating sinful thoughts (same sex partners loving and accepting each other). There was also a Hispanic actor that came out as for prop 8.

The Asians (of which I'm one of)... oh boy. Any pro prop 8 argument I heard from them was just weird and illogical. It wasn't bigotted, but based on what they understood to be correct. One guy equated homosexuality with polygamy. Just very weird.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

I didn't see any Asian numbers. And yes, I think I remember now about the actor.

The whole thing is so frustrating. :(

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't speculate why, but in response to a challenge, I found various polls supporting the idea that blacks tend to be more hostile to gay rights than other groups, so it's not a one-off thing.
http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/1484726.html?thread=23569334#t23569334

[bifemmefatale.livejournal.com]

But you could still ask that question about whites too.

I've seen a lot of people saying, "Blacks understand oppression so they should have voted NO", but when has they LGBT community made alliances with the black community? Not much. And when you have white gays screaming "Nigger!" at black gays *with anti-Prop 8 signs* (See Pam's House Blend blog), you have your answer. Being oppressed doesn't make you not racist any more than it makes you not homophobic. We in the queer community have work to do building bridges, and this issue highlighted where the work needs to be done.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

But why would it make you, if I saw the numbers right, MORE homophobic than whites? Because of what some ignorant white gays yelled?

[bifemmefatale.livejournal.com]

Religion, not race, is the villain here.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

So there are more religious minorities than religious whites? Proportionately?

[elf]

Yes. Or rather, proportionally more Christian minorities than whites.

The agnostic/atheist and Unitarian movements (if "movement" is the right word) are overwhelmingly white. Paganism has a vast white majority. Traditional Buddhism does not, but many self-proclaimed Buddhists in California are white people interested in "eastern" religions. (Can't say whether it's a majority, but unlike the number of white people involved in Voodoo, Ifa or Candomble, it's substantial.)

Churches were (and are) a big part of the support network for nonwhite civil rights; trying to pit people against their churches for a civil rights issue was probably doomed from the start. At the very least, it needed a much better and more coherent explanation--perhaps a comparison to the Prohibition Era, to point out that you can think an act is immoral without thinking it should be banned for everyone, and can realize that banning it just causes problems all around.

Of course, doing that compares gay marriage to a vice, and the anti-8 crowd didn't want to do that. So instead, they kept insisting "give us equal rights!" And the churchgoing crowds, even liberal ones, couldn't figure out what kind of "right" was involved in a type of marriage that had never existed in the history of the U.S... and didn't want to risk unknown legal changes that would go with it.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

The right to each other's social security?

Seriously, I don't get it. I mean I don't get why churches can't understand that they don't have to marry anyone they disapprove of (like the Catholic Church refuses to marry me), and why no one has thought to plainly state, look, there are laws that are being denied to me, isntead of going for the emotional "But we LOVE each other" stuff.

[elf]

"Rights to widow/er's benefits" is probably not a real concern for anyone except the most fanatic religious bigots. Plenty of organizations--including the federal gov't--don't want to provide them for anyone they don't have to, but that's a purely economic concern.

The rights people are worried about are things like custody battles, minors/college students' rooming situations (can a married couple live in a fraternity?), the legal right to tell children that gay is wrong even if it's legal (why they think that'd change with marriage, I dunno), and whether divorce and separations will become even more common. (What kind of cause-and-effect is there, I couldn't tell you. But changing the legal & social dynamics of marriage is a touchy thing, and could certainly have unexpected results.)

And, of course, there's a lot of concern about loss of expected privileges, which has been phrased as "eroding our rights," like "the right not to be asked your spouse's gender on a form" or "the right to buy wedding cards without having to look at the text to make sure what genders are involved" or "the right to not see two women holding hands while in a line for a romantic comedy" or "the right to not have to ask a young father wearing a ring whether he has a wife or a husband."

Everyone can argue for "we're in love; we want to get married." It takes legal study to figure out the exact rights and responsibilities of marriage (some of 'em, anyway; they're not all described), and people who don't actually understand it, sound like idiots when they try to discuss it. I'm happy with huge mobs saying "you can't block my love!!!" and a small cluster of that mob being able to also say "... and here's the list of fourteen essential rights of marriage being denied to me, and two thousand non-essential rights."

[texaslawchick.livejournal.com]

The Civil Rights Movement started in black churches, the same black churches that very loudly condem homosexuality. Divorcing civil rights and religion in the black community isn't a cut and dried issue.

[elf]

They voted yes because the Yes-On-8 campaign lied... and nobody was around to contradict those lies.

♦ They were told that their kids would be forced to "learn about gay marriage in school"--with the implication that their kids would be told "it's okay to be gay; it's okay to marry someone of the same sex; if some people think that's wrong, they're irrelevant."

— And nobody did the outreach necessary to tell them, no; the most your kids will be told is "couples of the same gender can get married." Just like now, they might get told "couples of the same gender can legally live together."

♦ They were told churches would (or could) lose their right to exist, for continuing to preach what they've believed for years. Centuries, some of them.

— They were not told this is a lie. That churches can believe--and preach--anything they want, as long as they're not advocating violence or other crimes while doing it.

♦ They were told churches would be forced to perform gay marriages or lose their tax-free status.

— They were not reminded that no church is required to marry *anyone*, and that many churches refuse to solemnize marriages for non-members, or divorcees, or people who haven't been through counseling. Churches are free to add "same-sex couples" to that list.

♦ They were told that gays already had all the same rights as married couples, and were going to all this hassle over a single word.

— They were not told that no, there are several legal differences between "marriage" and "domestic partnership," even in California, nor reminded that obviously, the word "marriage" carries social impact that the state is required not to grant some couples and bar to others.

The fundamentalist bigots who sponsored & promoted 8 were counting on churches to casually accept "marriage = male + female," without thinking about what that meant legally or even personally to some of them. And they were right... the No On 8 campaign failed to do real outreach to liberal & civil-rights oriented churches, many of whose members are willing to accept "those icky people, I don't like them, but I don't think their actions need to be illegal, either."

[texaslawchick.livejournal.com]

♦ They were told that gays already had all the same rights as married couples, and were going to all this hassle over a single word.

— They were not told that no, there are several legal differences between "marriage" and "domestic partnership," even in California, nor reminded that obviously, the word "marriage" carries social impact that the state is required not to grant some couples and bar to others.

Is this true? When I read the California Supreme Court case it seemed to me that the issue was solely over whether the term "civil union" was analagous to "marriage". I have a California licence but it's inactive, and I confess that I haven't been paying much as much attention as when I left the state six years ago.

IANAL.

[elf]

The CA Supreme Court accepted the word of the Attorney General that the rights were the same--while also listing nine ways in which they were not.

California Family Code Section 297.5, subdivision (a), states:
"Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."

However, there are other laws that haven't been adjusted to comply with that requirement:

1. Residency requirement for domestic partners
2. Minors can marry but not be domestic partners
3. Different filings; marriage requires solemnization
4. No confidential domestic partnership
5. Terminating a marriage requires a judge's ruling
6. Terminating a marriage requires residency
7. Domestic partners ineligible for CalPERS long-term care insurance program
8. Property tax exemption for spouse of deceased veteran
9. Putative spouse doctrine is not putative domestic partner doctrine

¨Domestic partners do not have the same rights: the right to commit to each other without residing together, to join in union as minors, to keep their relation confidential, to have a good-faith belief in the relationship provide some protection from damages.

¨They do not have the same protections: judicial overview and residency for dissolution.

¨They do not receive the same benefits: access to insurance policies and tax exemptions.

¨They do not have the same obligations: the requirement for solemnization of a commitment ceremony.

These show that the state of California does not treat domestic partnerships the same as marriage, nor equal to marriage. Instead, domestic partnerships are strongly implied to be a mere contract between individuals—not an essential unit of society that the state has an interest in encouraging and governing. They are not legally treated as family units equal in importance and social value to marriages.

(More details in Separate is not equal)

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's true. The Calif. Constitution has, among other things, an explicit right to privacy. This means one can be secretly wed; the same is not true of civil unions.

There are some other issues which also affect marriage, which are part of precedent. Those precedents don't extent to civil unions.

Those are a large part of why the question of the respective natures of civil union and marriage were the central issue in the decision.

FYI

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

A friend of mine sells this shirt on CafePress; the text is something I came up with, but I'm not a graphic artist. As far as I'm concerned, equal protection under the law most assuredly is a civil-rights issue!

[daedala.livejournal.com]

Particularly given the misinformation campaign.

[firepower.livejournal.com]

It's been explicitly put to me as, "Oh, and the fact that you guys ran a black president... cause had the turn out from blacks been the same in Cali as it was in 2004, this amendment would not have passed. Blacks voted 70% FOR the amendment."

That's verbatim from a yes on 8 voter! So wait, somehow nominating the first black president in American history makes me - and, presumably, the blacks whom I duped into voting, like the idiot I am - responsible for this desolation of a gay marriage ban?

Look, we'll always have black people to blame. That's what blaming the victim is - and if we don't blame black people, we're gonna blame gay people for being so stupid as to believe they could be in an alliance with black people. White gays, this argument says, should shut up and keep their sexuality secret so they can come in for the big win on the side of all right-thinking white people everywhere.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

The impression I get is that is that we're seeing Republican "black" propaganda based on some very dodgy exit polls. Whatever truth there might be in the claim about voters in California, they're out to smear Obama.

[firepower.livejournal.com]

Yeah. The idea the right have is to start our famous circular firing squad.

I'm determined not to let them, and I'm really angry at Jon Stewart for getting involved.

If they're religious or not, is the left's takeaway from this really supposed to be that we should be happy when a minority oppressed for 350 years doesn't vote?

I think this whole situation requires a lot more engagement from actual white Democrats with actual black Democrats, and Republicans are betting it won't happen. We need to prove them wrong.

[redbird]

If that's from a person who voted yes, they ought to be thanking you for getting out the vote for their side.

Seriously: this crap is annoying enough from non-black people who voted no and are trying not to think about their relatives, friends, or coworkers voting now, because it's easier to blame something on strangers from another class or community than on people you'd like to think of as friends. But "how dare you get black people to vote, because if they hadn't I would have voted no, but the psychic emanations of knowing the Democratic candidate was black forced me to vote for bigotry"?!

[firepower.livejournal.com]

You're both hilarious and correct. I really think it's just white right-wingers trying to drive a wedge in between us because they think they can. See my reply to antonia_tiger above. This whole situation worries me enough that I'm going to update it a little more extensively.

[firepower.livejournal.com]

"update about it"

[serge-lj.livejournal.com]

everyone else is to blame for, at least, 350,000 votes

How small a percentage of the voting population of California does that add up to? No matter what, this is a reminder to people who say that their vote doesn't matter that in fact it does.

[elf]

The final precinct vote count for Prop 8 was 10,357,002 (doesn't include absentee/provisional ballots), with five and a half million for, five million against. (That's rounding both numbers up a bit, but ok for casual discussion, especially given that half a million is the shortfall.)

Alameda County had over 350,000 registered voters who didn't vote. San Francisco had almost 173,000. Contra Costa, 142,000+. Los Angeles had almost a million and a half who didn't vote. Those counties voted against Prop 8.

Statewide: 17,300,000 million voters. 11 million voted.

We certainly shouldn't blame the black population for the over six million people who didn't go to the polls.

[serge-lj.livejournal.com]

That's about 3% of the voters who didn't vote, but if they had, Prop 8, might have been thrown out. Or it might have passed with an even higher number of votes. After all, it may be that they didn't vote because they don't care.

[elf]

Found more numbers: an article says Black voters account for about 6% of voters in most statewide elections. As they came out in record numbers for this, I've heard it was about 10% of the total vote.

This was lost not on racial grounds, but on religious ones--by the No On 8 campaign failing to get the message across that religious beliefs should not be enacted into law.

IMHO, the outreach point for black voters should not have been, "this is like interracial marriage!" but "you know, the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman--and it also condones slavery. Not everything that's in the bible is something we want today."

[serge-lj.livejournal.com]

So, is it a case of our side not getting its message across and possibly being complacent about it until it was too late, or the other side having lots of money to get its message out early on and not being complacent about it?

My understanding is that Utah's Mormons provided a lot of support to Prop 8. I don't get why they would want to restrict the definition of marriage. Didn't they have to put up with that in the past? Then again, some people want change for one specific thing that affects them, but are quite conservative about everything and everybody else.

[kevenn.livejournal.com]

Because the Mormon church is like the kid in high school that is desperate to be accepted by the popular kids. They want to be accepted by the evangelical right, who still look down their noses at them as being not-real Christians. In the last ten years, the Mormon church has turned it's culture into a more conservative, more right-wing leaning culture, where it's now "against church policy" to have a tattoo or to have more than one piercing in an ear.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

There is more to it than that. Mormonism has always been really homophobic (one of the quirks of my line of work in the army is that Mormons are strongly overrepresented. One needs to be fluent in a foreign language).

I think, actually, it stems from the polygamy. When the Supreme Court ruled that outlawing polygamy was legal the rationale was the social strain caused by the low ratio of women to men, and the further strain caused by so many of them being taken out of circulation by church elders.

So there was a large body of men who had no sexual outlet. Even today the repressive nature of the religion, and the time spent in all-male environs (Boy Scouting is a religious obligation, missions are same-sex living conditions, etc.) makes the "temptation" of homosexuality ever present in their minds.

People I love dearly, are incomprehensibly homo-phobic. Some of them figure that AIDS patients (who are all guilty of various sins, or they'd not have AIDS) ought to quaratined and left to fend for themselves.

As to the piercing, that's female ears. Men are not supposed to engage in such effeminate forms of decoration,

[serge-lj.livejournal.com]

I thought it might be a case of two groups having a common ennemy that had to be defeated before they could turn on each other, and that usually leads to strange... ah... bedfellows. Thanks for the explanation.

[seldear.livejournal.com]

OT. I'm sorry, but I feel I have to address this.

The slavery that was condoned in the bible is not the slavery of American history.

Biblical slaves were people not property, they still had rights to protection and the assumption of humanity. According to the Old Testament laws, they weren't to be treated as cattle or sub-human, and Jews who became indentured slaves were to be freed every 7 years and allowed to return to their tribe and land.

(Incidentally, I'd love to see the faces of the religious right being told that, if they're gonna go for a theocracy, do they really intend to cancel the debts of their fellow Americans every fifty years as is cited in the laying out of the Mosaic laws regarding the Jubilee year?)

According to the New Testament letters of Paul, slaves (again, the slaves of the Roman Empire were not considered the sub-human 'cattle' of American Slavery) might also be their master's brothers and sisters in Christ and should be treated with respect and dignity by their masters, as they should serve their masters in respect and dignity.

I realise that it's an easy thing to say that "not everything that's in the bible is what we want today" and bill slavery as one of those, but the kind of slavery that we're talking about in the bible is not the same as the kind of slavery that immediately jumps to mind when talking about the enslavement of Africans (and other non-white peoples) in America.

Just FYI.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Ok... yes, slavery of the ancient world wasn't the same as the chattel slavery of the recent past. First, anyone might become a slave, so some of the stigma wasn't there. Yes, slaves (even in Rome and Greece) had some rights; and protections against being killed out of hand (though less than the law, on paper, actually offered).

But the Hebraic code wasn't as enlightened as that. Yes, after seven years a Hebrew slave was to be offered his freedom. His family went with him, if they came with him.

Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."

But it was a one time deal: Deut: 15: 16-17 And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee; Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.


Non-hebrew slaves were a different deal altogether:

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

On the upside, a runaway slave was free, if he could get out of town. Deuteronomy 23:15-16: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him."

You also had to circumcise them (Genesis 17:13)

The Roman system changed in the latter empire, with the consolidations of the latifundia with the slaves becoming not personal property, but part of the estates; this is probably the genesis of the medieval status of serf, where one was not the propery of another, but rather tied to the land, and; effectively, slave to the owner/lord of it.

I don't really think saying slavery in the bible wasn't so bad is a good counter to the argument that things change; esp. because those same passages you are comparing to show the difference were used to justify the more recent form.

[seldear.livejournal.com]

Well, I wasn't planning to form an entire argument on it, just pointing out that slavery as we understand it in modern times did not entirely resemble the slavery of ancient times.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I just don't think it's a very good argument. In practical terms, slavery in Rome was no better than slavery in the US. In the US there weren't people buying slaves to have them kill each other for public entertainment.

The punishment for escaping wasn't state execution by crucifixion. The Ancient world, in so many places was predicate on having a large body of slaves; which is why anyone might end up as one.

Was it, for those who were victims of it as cruel? Hard to say, but it was institutionally more pervasive, and more oppressive.

Slaves

[killslowly.livejournal.com]

Slaves of the past was like a lease, slaves as we know today, are more like buying a new car or a previously owned one.

Semantics. Slavery was and is fucked up regardless of who, when or where was/is practiced.

We will evolve one day so that separate but equal will be a disgusting thing of our past.

But right now, the people have spoken. And as much as I do not like what the people said (Obama the president, and Yes on Prop 8), this is a democracy and we should cherish that.

Rejoice in our freedoms.

Re: Slaves

[killslowly.livejournal.com]

And this is a great battleground that the Gay Marriage issue is creating. Once the gay community gets their well deserved right to marry one another, then so will polygamy or polyamory will be legal and many will be happy for that. And after that, age discrimination in marriage will be abolished, and we may be able to marry whomever we want, regardless of gender, race, age, religion, or number of partners.

Yay!!!

[elf]

The marriage we have today is not the marriage described in the bible, either. We don't allow people to sell their children into marriage against their will, allow men to have multiple wives, kill people for adultery, or have the man owning all the property of the marriage. We also allow divorce and remarriage.

The legal arrangement we have for "marriage" bears as little resemblance to biblical marriage as US slavery bore to biblical slavery.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

To do the same as I did for seldear, the marriage in the bible allows for divorce and remarriage. It has some differences, but it does allow for that; with some tolerably favorable (esp. for the time/place) treatment of the woman.

[lady-jem.livejournal.com]

Thing is, pretty much NO institution we have today is the same as those addressed in the Bible, but unfortunately there is a large and vocal branch of Christianity, the members of which believe that, regardless of the socio-cultural context in which it was written, the Bible is to be taken literally and un-interpreted for us today. (Because when God wrote it through the hand of the human scribe, God knew we would be reading it someday, or something like that.)

Except, of course, for the parts which tell us that eating shrimp cocktail is an abomination equal to homosexuality...or that it is a sin to loan money with interest on the loan...or the silence of women...or so many other things...

(and the new testament pretty much does say no divorce, sort of unequivocally...)

My own take, oversimplified though this might be, is that IMO any oppressed group has a limited ability to focus on more than one oppression at a time. Black and Latino communities are still struggling with strong racial oppression. Anglo-european communities, without other obvious oppressive structures, had the opportunity to settle down and deal seriously with gender inequality--there's a lot of deeply entrenched gender oppression (speaking in gross generalities, I know, don't shoot me!!!) in much of the Latino and AfAm communities, and I believe it goes largely unnoticed because the community as a whole is fighting the oppression AGAINST the community, and they simply don't have the resources to all-out deal with other layers of oppression going on within.

Back to the Anglo-European groups...after a fairly chunk of energy spent in the Catholics vs. Protestants wars (notice how forgotten those are?), we started dealing with gender inequality--it's not solved, but it's in retreat at least for the moment--so now we have the resources (inner as well as outer) to address LGBT discrimination. Latino and African-American communities just haven't gotten there yet; the oppression against their races as a whole are there, the oppression against women has barely been scratched, and there's the internal "culture of origin" stuff too, Mexicanos vs. Puertoriquenos vs. Salvadorans etc, African-Americans vs. Africans, and so forth. How much can a single community hope to address at any one time?

Hmm, this is the first time I've articulated this idea. Am I talking out of my nether orifice, or does this make a small amount of sense?
-Jem

[lady-jem.livejournal.com]

OH, and by the way, since I don't think I was entirely clear--this line of musing has really nothing to do with Prop 8, but was intended to address the question of why there isn't as much activism around LGBT issues in the black and Latino communities...

just to clarify.
--Jem

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this. I'm not going to say more, because this whole fight has broken my heart, but I wanted to thank you for this.