Posts
from NewsOne.com
LEFT OF BLACK
Black Voters, White Progressives and Prop 8
By Mark Anthony Neal
In all of the euphoria over Barack Obama’s election as the first African-American President, black voters have been cast as a vital part of the electorate that made his victory possible. There has been another story developing in the state of California, as black voters in the state, according to exit polls, voted 2-1 in favor of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment which bans same-sex marriage reversing ruling made only months ago by the California Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage.
Black support for Proposition 8 highlights one of the many fault-lines in the alliance that swept Barack Obama into the White House. The rhetoric is being amped up as some are essentially blaming black voters-often thought as critical to a liberal or progressive voting bloc-for the revoking of same-sex marriage privileges. The rift between traditional black voters and white progressives comes at a critical juncture, as President-Elect Obama seeks the political footing for his agenda. Without a viable and visible progressive political bloc, Obama will have little choice but to govern from the political center.
Though black voters have historically been some of the most consistent members of a liberal voting bloc, they tend to be more conservative on social issues such as same-sex marriage. This was something that strategist Karl Rove understood as the Bush campaign used the shiny-ball that was same-sex marriage in the 2004 presidential to garner just enough support among black voters in a state like Ohio to turn the tide in favor of the incumbent. It was a lesson that those who sought to defeat Proposition 8 should have studied.
It is clear though that organizers did little outreach into black communities assuming that with a black presidential candidate that was supportive of same-sex marriage, (though more tepidly supportive of Proposition 8 during the campaign cycle), that black voters would fall in line. But black views on same sex-marriage are more complicated; simply reading black voters as inherently homophobic misses the complexity of an issue that, in black communities, is often tied to the absence of black men as husbands and fathers. Understood in that context, same-sex marriage goes against the belief of many within black communities that black survival is hopelessly tied to traditional marriage patterns. That said, the Black Clergy needs to be accountable for hateful rhetoric directed towards gays, lesbians and transgendered citizens (including a good many in their congregations) and for willful fear-mongering.
Read the Full Essay @
LEFT OF BLACK
Black Voters, White Progressives and Prop 8
By Mark Anthony Neal
In all of the euphoria over Barack Obama’s election as the first African-American President, black voters have been cast as a vital part of the electorate that made his victory possible. There has been another story developing in the state of California, as black voters in the state, according to exit polls, voted 2-1 in favor of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment which bans same-sex marriage reversing ruling made only months ago by the California Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage.
Black support for Proposition 8 highlights one of the many fault-lines in the alliance that swept Barack Obama into the White House. The rhetoric is being amped up as some are essentially blaming black voters-often thought as critical to a liberal or progressive voting bloc-for the revoking of same-sex marriage privileges. The rift between traditional black voters and white progressives comes at a critical juncture, as President-Elect Obama seeks the political footing for his agenda. Without a viable and visible progressive political bloc, Obama will have little choice but to govern from the political center.
Though black voters have historically been some of the most consistent members of a liberal voting bloc, they tend to be more conservative on social issues such as same-sex marriage. This was something that strategist Karl Rove understood as the Bush campaign used the shiny-ball that was same-sex marriage in the 2004 presidential to garner just enough support among black voters in a state like Ohio to turn the tide in favor of the incumbent. It was a lesson that those who sought to defeat Proposition 8 should have studied.
It is clear though that organizers did little outreach into black communities assuming that with a black presidential candidate that was supportive of same-sex marriage, (though more tepidly supportive of Proposition 8 during the campaign cycle), that black voters would fall in line. But black views on same sex-marriage are more complicated; simply reading black voters as inherently homophobic misses the complexity of an issue that, in black communities, is often tied to the absence of black men as husbands and fathers. Understood in that context, same-sex marriage goes against the belief of many within black communities that black survival is hopelessly tied to traditional marriage patterns. That said, the Black Clergy needs to be accountable for hateful rhetoric directed towards gays, lesbians and transgendered citizens (including a good many in their congregations) and for willful fear-mongering.
Read the Full Essay @
6 comments:
I'm not sure why the results of this vote surprised so many people. The call to end bigotry has been directed exclusively at the white population for decades. I thought everyone understood that the minority groups were as bigoted, if not more so.
Are we to the point where that can be discussed, or am I still a white racist for bringing it up?
Either way, this straight, white Obama voter will be downtown tomorrow protesting Prop8. Hopefully I will see some of you there.
The black vote against Prop 8 had less to do with absent black men in the single female household than it did with establishing a pecking order of social privilege. Even the subaltern needs a subaltern. The same mechanisms of disenfranchisement apply equally to both queer and black subjection.
Lazaro Lima,
I think your point represents a rather attractive and compelling theoretical view--and one that I in principle share. But as someone who has spent much of my career as an academic and activist confronting Black homophobia, I know that its presence is much more complicated than the need to establish a pecking order.
I don't like the fact that the homosexual community is equating the desire to keep marriage between a man and a woman with homophobia. For me it is a spiritual and moral issue, it has nothing to do with religion. Marriage was created by God. God set the precedent. And our founding fathers were forward thinking enough to lock this precedent into the Constitution. Why change that, especially if civil unions will provide the benefits that gays and lesbians originally sought? Could it be that homosexuality is just plain wrong according to the word of God? The bottomline is that this is where the argument is God calls homosexuality unnatural. And calling anyone who holds dear the word of God a bigot or homophobic doesn't change God's point of view on the matter. Homosexuality has mad great strides. You have gay couples adopting children,raising families, receiving family benefits,you have representation on tv, you can't be discriminated against in the workforce. Why do you have to change the marriage contract?????
Gwen, I personally think marriage doesn't work for "straights" (almost 70% of the time given current divorce rates). But to your question, “Why do you have to change the marriage contract?” Try Loving vs. Virginia (1967).
Bottom line, a lot of soul searching for why blacks voted for prop 8 isn't going to lead to much. In the end, the way you solve the marriage inequality problem is you take the government, both federal and state, out of the marriage business. The current problem stems from the fact that marriage is both a legal and religious institution. Marriange has been ordained by religious sects since near the dawn of humanity and of course you are going to get blowback when you try to change the legal definiton of this religious institution from what it has historically been, even if for the sake of equality. To me, the potential for problems cropped up when governments started recognizing marriages and giving married couples special privelleges--in recognition that marriages generally were good for the stability of society. Now that we've gotten around to realizing that religions can discriminate on who can be married, but the federal and state governments should not, we need to "seperate church and state" and get the government out of the business of recognizing a religous institution--marriage--and back into the aspect of society government it does best in, law, by limiting government to granting civil unions to everyone, gay or straight. People can have their domestic partnership recognized with a civil union, and then the couple can decide if they want to go to a church or some other organization for a marriage. It will then be incumbent on the couple and the religion of their choosing to decide if they are appropriate candidates for marriage. That way everyone is left to decide their own religous definition of marriage, and the government isn't promulgating "seperate but equal" ideas on civil unions and marriage.
Post a Comment