Prop 8 & Race & Obama & The South
So much is being written about Prop. 8 and black homophobia (see for example here, here, and here) that I cannot keep up. Yesterday we learned that Prince Is Anti-Gay (but Ta-Nehisi Coates thinks Andrew Sullivan is “drawing a bizarre line between Prince’s homophobia and Prop 8 and black people” via Joe.My.God).
Me, I’m fascinated by a tidbit in amongst the barrage of data pulled together by Professor Charles Franklin, of Political Arithmetik and Pollster.com. While looking at support for Obama across demographic groups, Franklin finds:
First is a chart showing the relative sizes and shifts of 83 demographic groups. Those above the diagonal [link] shifted toward Obama from Kerry’s 2004 performance, those below it shifted away from Obama. Tellingly, only three groups moved away–”small town,” “decided last 3 days,” and–perhaps surprisingly “gay”.
Perhaps surprisingly??? If I’m reading this chart right, the gay swing was the largest of the three. Does anyone want to attribute that swing to race?
Via Ezra Klein:
…the best way to explain the voting preferences of Southern whites is race, but the best way to predict their behavior is to understand that racist voting has become simple partisan voting. If they were once voting for Republicans because they were racist, they’re now voting for Republicans because they are Republicans.
In the case of African Americans voting for Prop 8 in California, I tend to agree with those who say it is religion more than race. And I think along those same lines for whites who voted against Obama in the South.
The South has openly dealt with race for much longer than the North ever did. At this point religion is more to blame than race. (Even as I must acknowledge that some of Franklin’s other charts suggest I could be wrong.)
RELATED: Richard Thompson Ford makes his argument that racism is the wrong frame for understanding the passage of California’s same-sex marriage ban. I’ve addressed his argument here before.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
14 Responses to “Prop 8 & Race & Obama & The South”
Psst! Hey, Joe, consider the perfect future for an organization taken over by young liberal techies (even more than in the general population) and making a tech company's Web site into something surpassing anything in the liberal mainstream media, even MSNBC — a Web site with its blatant youth-oriented techy-gossipy content that's perfect for Obama lovers; the site could have Obama thumbnails strung across the topp of the page, and a whole section dedicated to tech blogging and another to liberal blogging as well as staple sites like Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and so on.
You and your crowd should take over and Obamanize the following company and site: Yahoo.
It's in a better-than-ever position to be acquired now that Yang has stepped down, you know.
And that site and its Web page (and underlying infrastructure) is just what lib-techno-warriers need.
(warriors)
It's amazing how if your against Prop 8, you are automatically anti-gay and homophobic. Also if you are religious, you get “blamed” for not voting for Obama.
The one-sided coverage of this issue is making the Moderate Voice, the Left Voice
Joe -
I read the links you provided. Thanks. A few days ago, Jazz provided me with a few more links. No matter what one's position is on Proposition 8 — if a California citizen, I would have voted for it — it helps the dialogue to give concrete examples of physical violence against gays, and that is what the links did for me today. Wherever we ultimately end up on the issue of gay marriage as a nation, we can all agree that violence is never right.
Wally, did you mean to say for Proposition 8?
Hm. I'm wishing I had been more clear in my post. My point was that just as I don't blame blacks for prop 8 in California, I don't blame southern racists for Obama's performance in the South. And while the gay demographic moved away from Obama this year as compared to the gay vote for Kerry in 2004, I'm not seeing any conversation suggesting that gay swing was racially motivated. These three — blacks in California, whites in the south, and gays for Obama — seem analogous to me.
So why then are we so happy to blame blacks and southern racists for Prop 8 in CA and Obama's loss in Dixie? Habit and our prejudice?
I attribute the results to religious belief (and should have used “attribute” rather than “blame”), but didn't go on to say or mean to imply anything more than that. I'm quite confident conservative religious leaders are glad to take credit for their flock voting the way those religious leaders wanted. And the way those religious leaders wanted their flock to vote was against Obama and for Prop 8. Further, conservative religious voters say and believe that their votes are not motivated by prejudice towards gays or blacks.
Finally, I do see miscegenation and gay marriage as similar. I wish I had been able to be more clear about all of it.
wally, if you support a ban on gay marriage, you ARE anti-gay. You may not want to admit it to yourself, but by supporting Prop 8 you're basically saying that gays are second class citizens, not worthy of the rights, protections, and responsibilities of marriage. It is bigotry wrapped in semantics and a Bible, which I find especially ironic considering Jesus preached we should love each other despite our flaws and differences and leave the passing of judgements to God.
I have yet to hear a sound, logical argument supporting Prop 8 that doesn't rely on religious traditions or poorly-masked homophobia. If you happen to have one, this is as good a place as any to share it. But for me, there really is only one right way to address the issue of gay marriage, and that is to make it legal.
Disagree. No one is made a 2nd class citizen by supporting Prop 8. Everyone has the same rights. If homosexuality and marriage are viewed as choices in life, everyone has the same rights to marry or choose not to.
The argument against is one of definition. By changing the definition of marriage, we are changing the constructs of a fundamental social institution. It transcends any religion or government and goes to who we are as a people. By God's design or “Darwin's”, two people of the same sex just can't reproduce. Therefore, common sense tells you there relationship is something else. If we define marriage as this relationship in society as we pretty have, then go an change the defn to something else, what else are we going to allow? This is the argument in a nutshell but a real exploration is much more philosophical.
My problem with the whole Prop 8 fallout is the lack of respect for people and opinions that are for Prop 8. People are either labeled as homophobes, religious nuts, etc. I think this is because for those who lost in Prop 8 (and in 29 other state gay marriage initiatives) this is a tough defeat, especially since it was California. Instead of working for common ground on this issue and accepting what the people have said and respecting the majority, even if they don't agree, there has been far too much name calling and out and out anger.
Even if I don't support gay marriage, I can respect the opinions of those that do without calling names. Usually the left champions tolerance of ideas, but in this case I'm not seeing it
wally, homosexuality isn't a choice. One cannot help being attracted to one sex or the other (or both in some cases). Marriage, however, is a choice and one that Prop 8 doesn't allow gays to make for themselves. In no way did the previous law allowing gay marriage force churches or other religious groups to recognize or perform ceremonies for homosexual couples. It didn't infringe on the rights of those who would prefer to keep marriage as a heterosexual bond.
Your implication that marriage is strictly for procreation is also a fallacy. Marriage is also a partnership between two adults, a committment to stay together and love and respect each other for the rest of your lives. When I was a kid, my next door neighbors didn't have children, yet they were married and seemed to be happy. I learned when I was a bit older that the wife had had 3 miscarriages and decided to get her tubes tied rather than go through that again. If her inability to have children isn't a reason to deny her the right to get married, then I see no reason to deny that right to someone like my brother who is gay. They were born with those traits and there was no choice involved – why punish one and not the other?
And what about adoption? I personally don't want to have children of my own, but some day I'd like to adopt a child with a future spouse. Should I refrain from marriage because I don't want to procreate? Would you deny a gay couple the right to use a sperm donor or a surrogate mother to have their own child? Would you prevent them from adopting children? If so, please explain why.
As to your other charge, that of Prop 8 opponents being intolerant, well I can't speak for everyone who opposes this measure, but here I am, reading your arguments. I'm listening to what you have to say and while I passionately disagree with you on this particular issue, I hope I haven't come across as rude or disrespectful.
This could go back and forth. My goal is not to convince anyone one way or another but to show that one can support Prop 8 w/o being a bigot, homophobe, or Bible-thumper. Hopefully, I've gotten close to achieving that.
You bring up an interesting point about churches being forced to perform marriages. They may not be forced to perform them but will they still retain their tax status if they are now found to “discriminate” against a particular group?
You have not been rude, but there seems to be a collective stereotyping of those who support Prop 8 that is quite disconcerting. I don't see myself as “anti-gay” but it seems like you're playing the “if you not for us your against us” card here. I'm neither for gay marriage or against gays… so I guess I'm back to feeling like those who opposed the Iraq war.
It's not a trivial subject and it's worthy of healthy discourse. It's the health of the discourse that's caused me to speak out.
Amanda says: “They were born with those traits and there was no choice involved – why punish one and not the other?” I have asked repeatedly on several threads at TMV to be pointed to a definitive, scientific study on the genetics of sexual attraction. To date, I've yet to receive a response. I'd be very interested to read this research, because a true “gay gene” would be worth discussion. So far, it seems to me to only be an unproven talking point for one side of this discussion. Hypothetically, if this could be found, would future parents be able to order their children gay or straight, through genetic engineering? But we're not to that advanced state technologically…not yet. Meanwhile, most supporters of gay marriage also support abortion rights. Would they be comfortable with parents aborting unborn children who were determined through genetic screening to be gay or straight?
It seems that gay marriage is quickly heading towards abortion rights territory. There can be no middle ground (according the fanatics at both edges of the debate). There can be no reasoned disagreement. There can only be hatred, bigotry, religious intolerance, racism, and bad intent.
The hamer Study of 1993 looked at genetic links to homosexuality.
There's another study being done now that MSNBC has an article on.
The general consensus among psychologists and doctors these days is that homosexuality is probably a combination of factors from genetic predispositions to the environment in which people are raised – in other words, things that are beyond the control of the homosexuals themselves.
I don't think that there is a “gay gene” any more than there's a hetero gene or a bisexual gene. I for one don't like cheese. Everyone in my family likes the stuff, but I hate it. Just the smell makes me nauseous. Is there some whacky gene that makes me this way? Maybe, but I doubt it. But at the same time, it's not something I can help feeling. It's just the way I am. That's how my brother described his homosexuality to me once. Sure, it's a little unusual, but it's just the way he is.
I don't know about your hypothetical situation. The idea of engineering children is just…creepy. Somehow it seems wrong to be able to pick and choose which traits our babies have. I would hope that, aside from curing diseases or fixing health-defects, we would stay out of manipulating human DNA. Veering into eugenics is an ugly can of worms I'd rather not open.
I am a supporter of abortion rights, not because I think abortions should be performed, but because it's not my business to tell someone else what to do with her body. Also, the people who generally oppose abortion are also opposed to common-sense sex education. We wouldn't have so many abortions if everyone had a comprehensive knowledge of how to prevent pregnancies in the first place.
The only thing churches have to do to maintain tax exempt status is stay out of public policy. That's why the Mormon church is in such a fix now – they actively lobbied and raised money for a secular law. They can continue not allowing gays to have church weddings (after all, they don't let non-Christians have church weddings) without fear of repercussions from the federal government. The whole separation of church and state thing goes both ways. As long as the churches stay out of government business, the government leaves the churches alone.
I guess my question for you, and other Prop 8 supporters, is this. Why do oppose gay marriage if you think being gay is ok?