Prop Hate Rides Again

May 26, 2009
stop H8te rally

stop H8te rally

Today was an historic day for marriage equality. And, yes, I mean that in the worst possible way. It was a sobering day for those who believed the  ladder of justice, once put in place,  moves ever upward.  It can and does sometimes move downward. Like today.  But the fight goes on. So fuck ’em.

A friend reminded me just how precarious rights can be with this excruciating and graphic time line of the African-American slog toward social justice.  I thought it worth reprinting:

1809 – New York recognizes black marriages
1810 – US bans blacks as mail carriers
1818 – Connecticut disenfranchises blacks
1821 — New York maintains property qualifications for AA male voters while abolishing the same for white male voters.
1821 – Missouri disfranchises free black male voters.
1822 – Rhode Island disfranchises black voters.
1827 – New York & Tennessee ban slavery
1829 — More than half of Cincinnati’s African American residents are driven out of the city by white mob violence.
1831 — North Carolina enacts a statute that bans teaching slaves to read and write.
1831 – Alabama makes it illegal for enslaved or free blacks to preach.
1838 — Pennsylvania disfranchises black voters.
1847 – Missouri bans the education of free blacks.
1851 — Sojourner Truth delivers her famous “Aren’t I a Woman” speech at Women’s Rights Convention in Ohio
1855 — Massachusetts Legislature outlaws racially segregated schools.
1857 – Dred Scott case: congress cannot ban slavery, and slaves are not citizens
1858 — Arkansas enslaves free blacks who refuse to leave the state.
1864 – Dr. Rebecca Lee Crumpler of Boston is the first African American woman to earn a medical degree
1865 — Lincoln signs the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlawing slavery throughout the United States.
1865 – Ku Klux Klan is formed in Pulaski, Tennessee
1872 — Charlotte Ray of Washington, D.C. becomes the first African American woman to practice law.
1877 — The Compromise of 1877 effectively ends Reconstruction. Although Democratic Presidential candidate Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, Southern Democratic leaders agree to support Rutherford Hayes’s efforts to obtain the disputed electoral votes of Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina in exchange for the withdrawal of the last federal troops from the South and the end of federal efforts to protect the civil rights of African Americans.
1889 — Florida becomes the first state to use the poll tax to disenfranchise black voters.
1896 — Plessey v. Ferguson – Supreme Court rules that Southern segregation laws and practices (Jim Crow) do not conflict with the 13th and 14th Amendments. The Court defends its ruling by articulating the “separate but equal” doctrine.
1898 — In January the Louisiana Legislature introduces the “Grandfather Clause” into the state’s constitution. Only males whose fathers or grandfathers were qualified to vote on January 1, 1867, are automatically registered. Others (African Americans) must comply with educational or property requirements.
1913 – President Wilson initiates racial segregation of work places, rest rooms and lunch rooms in all federal offices across the nation.
1942 – U.S. Marine Corps accepts African American men for the first time.
1948 – California Supreme Court voids the law banning interracial marriages in the state
1955 – Rosa Parks refuses to relinquish her bus seat to a white man
1962 – James Meredith becomes the first black student to enroll at the University of Mississippi.
1965 — Malcolm X is assassinated
1966 – James Meredith is shot by a sniper.
1967 – Thurgood Marshall takes his seat as the first African American Justice on the United States Supreme Court
1968 – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee
1968 – Shirley Chisholm of New York is the first black woman elected to the U.S. Congress.

read the whole timeline here:
http://www.blackpast.org/?q=african-american-history-timeline-home-page

Today, a cowardly and craven California Supreme Court signed over a human right, the right to marry whom one chooses, of perhaps a tenth of its citizens, in exchange for a few more years warming the judicial bench. The California Supremes,threatened with recall by the evil Church machine  if they didn’t knuckle under to their goofy god-smacked homosexual fixation, naturally put on their own oxygen masks first. The religious zealots, for whom California marriage equality was ground zero for the nuclear family, plan statewide celebrations.  They’ll have to fight some party-pooping gayrrillas along the way.

The Supreme Court has set forth the masquerade that what was really at issue in the Proposition H8te anti-marriage amendment was the right of Californians to change their state constitution willy nilly.  Capriciously stripping a minority of rights whenever a plurality can be mustered by money and media was a secondary consideration. I’m so glad the attack on rights was willy nilly.

So now, let’s turn our Terminator-like gaze upon the other scoundrel in the piece: Barack Obamanation. Let’s face it, there was folly in the gay community’s insupportable Obamadoration; believing Dear Leader’s gym-pumped physique in a designer suit spelled A Glorious Future for all his fans.  Why should gays and lesbians be exempt from Obama’s perfidious backsliding on all things constitutional?

Obama had issues

Obama had issues

The signs were  there as big as billboards but were (mostly) ignored.  Obama was the featured attraction at every one:

Donnie McClurkin’s self-loathing and homo-hating gospel hour

ObaMcClurkin on Tour

ObaMcClurkin on Tour

The Rick Warren pow-wow and hoopla

The pre-Inaugural snub of Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson

The scads of LGBT campaign money that bought them a seat under the bus

The trainloads of cash and valuables dumped on the cockeyed clergy to buy their support

Call that prick over at NoChange. gov and ask for your money back.  And then get ready to fight dirty in 2010.

A h/t to Darragh Murphy at pumapac.org for this lovely analysis of what should have been:

The beauty of the Constitution of the United States is not that it holds our nation to a lofty ideal of 18th Century mores and the values of a few dozen white Colonial planters. The genius of the Constitution is that it is so quietly RADICAL. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin surely never knew the circle of United States citizenship would expand wide enough to encompass non-white men and all women.. (and LBGT) ..and we will never know if they would have written it differently if they HAD known that someday white men would be a minority of the population. But they did not write it differently.

Advertisements

Fallout from Prop 8-Analysis and Revenge

November 24, 2008

Now that proposition 8, the constitutional amendment retracting the marriage rights of same-sex couples, has passed, the parties on both sides of the debate will assess what their next steps should be.  Regardless of the outcome of the California Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of the measure, one side of the debate or the other will carry on the fight. In the meantime, angry gay rights groups are wondering who their enemies are and thinking about revenge.

Much has been said about the impact of the high African-American turnout for Barak Obama and the exceptionally high number of those Obama supporters who voted to reject gay marriage rights.  The argument has been made that proposition 8 supporters were deceived about the measure, but that just doesn’t wash.  In fact, it’s rather patronizing to think that of all the persons who voted yes, a large proportion of minorities just didn’t know what they were doing. Probably the most painful aspect of the outcome for white gays wasn’t just the relative numbers who voted yes, but that their “friends” did it.

The truth is that the reasons for the high yes vote on Proposition 8 are complex and sometimes difficult to articulate.  Conservative religious feeling, shame about sex and sexual mores which have been historically used to de-humanize African-Americans, economic resentments aroused when gays “gentrify” inner-city neighborhoods and drive them out, the notion that gays have hitched a ride on the civil rights train, all play a role in black resistance to the gay civil rights movement.  It may also be true that African Americans are relatively covert and oppressed within their own community and, therefore, less effective in delivering a pro-gay message than are white gays in liberal communities.  The negative attitudes are not universal, and are held more often by older African-Americans, but they are there.

For the white gays, who overwhelmingly supported Barak Obama from the outset, not Hillary Clinton, as some have suggested, there was shock and anger at the African-American support for Proposition 8.  The African-American numbers may not have been the decisive, or even the tipping point of the loss, but that was not really the issue.  White gays, without making any real analysis, just assumed they were going to get the Black vote.  Did they canvas African-American neighborhoods?  Did they have cadres of Black gays prepared to make an out reach in Black communities?  Not for me to criticize because I didn’t participate. But probably not as much as they needed to, because the results came as a big surprise.  If Black and other minorities are as invisible in the gay community as they are in the “straight” community, it’s easy to see how this could happen.  Let’s see if their is more cooperation for the battle of 2010.

This Article in the L.A. Times is interesting although the political coverage of that newspaper has been despicable and biased.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-prop8prop22,0,333635.htmlstory

My concern reading the article is that it suggests that the 1st Amendment right of free speech is under attack now from both the Left and the Right.

The Right, especially the religious Right, has always used group pressure tactics and the power of the boycott to force society to bend to its will-isolating and dehumanizing gays.  Gays in the past faced ostracism, job loss, rejection from their families, and even physical harm if they were “exposed” by curious or hateful individuals within their communities.  Usually, the heterosexuals, who weren’t affected or didn’t think gays mattered, didn’t care.  A gay person had a hard time speaking up to defend herself or anybody else.

Now, it seems, gays have learned how to wield these weapons, too.  They are going to expose and ostracize the people, who not only don’t agree with them, but have stripped them of their civil rights.

But there is another issue here.  Now that the donations made for political causes are accessible to everyone, anyone can be ostracized for their political views.  Everyone can lose his job or career.  Maybe it’s payback.  Maybe “they” should learn how it feels.  But going too far can have unintended consequences.  Let’s remember that we’re Americans first.