Sunday, November 16, 2008

Gay Rights Activists: Black Voters Are Dumb

We know one of the biggest initial controversies surrounding the Yes on 8 vote in California was the gay activist backlash against black voters, who turned out 70 percent in favor of the initiative.

At some of the first protest demonstrations, black passers-by - and even black gay marriage activists - were
verbally assaulted with the "n-word." Jasmyne Cannick, a black-lesbian civil rights activist, even argued that an affluent white gay constituency, in pushing its same-sex marriage agenda, couldn't care less about the economic dislocation and lingering (and real) racial discrimination against inner-city African Americans.

Well, the hits keep coming: It turns out that Kathryn Kolbert, president of
People for the American way, in an essay deceptively entitled, "Blaming Black Voters for Prop 8 Loss is Wrong and Destructive," identified black focus group participants as dumb, as they couldn't "sort out" the difference between civil unions and religious marriage:

People For the American Way Foundation conducted focus groups among African American churchgoers in California in September. Among men and women, and among younger and older groups, we found strong opposition to discrimination against LGBT people in employment and housing. And we found widespread support for legal protections for committed couples. Among all groups there was generally a live-and-let-live attitude toward gay people in their communities and congregations, and a recognition that couples deserve some basic legal protections. People For the American Way Foundation produced and ran three radio ads designed to tap that instinct for fairness and encouraging African Americans to oppose anti-gay discrimination.

But our focus groups also showed us that marriage equality faces a higher hurdle. Many people in our focus groups had difficulty sorting out the difference between civil marriage and marriage as a religious institution. Even some of the most eloquent opponents of discrimination argued that marriage was somehow different because they saw it as an inherently religious act that God had designed to be between a man and a woman [bold italics added].
You know, maybe we should give Kolbert some credit?

Perhaps this is simply a misstatement. She can't possibly mean that blacks are, well, thick!

They just don't, in the immortal words of Al Campanis, have the "necessities" to discern the difference between civil and religious institutions, and that ends up making them, well, bigots. I mean, for Kolbert, it couldn't possibly be that blacks, because of their deep spiritual upbringing in the values of the traditional African American church, might believe - as a matter of faith - that homosexual marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God.

Nope, they must be just stupid: Apparently, blacks simply can't reason through abstract or spiritural notions, such that, for example, we must "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God’s."

Nope, we have to get these people the civil religion of progressive totalitarianism, which obliterates moral distinctions in the agenda of decimating the soul!

One would think that the gay rights backlash against the black voting constituency would be enough of an insult in itself. Yet, on top of that, we see one of the country's most prominent equal opportunity interest groups essentially consigning these black focus-group participants to the back of the bus of intellectual capacity.

This whole Proposition 8 aftermath has been unsettling. But the demonizing condescension to people of faith - and of all colors - really takes the cake.

14 comments:

Publius said...

Ever notice that the people who preach tolerance are actually the most intolerant?

Jan said...

Donald..I'm still shaking my head at the hypocrisy, and deceit, evident in all of this.

For instance, I was reading The Volokh Conspiracy, and I was struck by this statement:

We lost despite being on the “no” side in a ballot fight, with the built-in advantage that gives you among those who vote “no” on everything out of understandable proposition fatigue. We lost despite the state attorney general changing the ballot title to reflect that it “eliminates rights,” something most Americans don’t like to do no matter the subject.

So, they were hoping to gain votes in their favor, based on the fact that people would be voting "no" on everything, because of "proposition fatigue," and by tweaking the title of the ballot?

No wonder they were shocked, expecting to get a lot of votes in an underhanded way, and having it backfire on them.

To say that their fight for rights can be compared to the fight for black civil rights is absurd.

Donald Douglas said...

Thanks Publius!

Donald Douglas said...

Jan: I just keep on seeing more left-wing wickedness, and, yes, hypocrisy.

I'll be glad when someone just says enough is enough ... we'll try again in four years, or whatever. These protests are going to be counterproductive, that's for sure. And it's a good thing!

Grace Explosion said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Donald Douglas said...

Thanks for visiting, Grace Explosion.

Anonymous said...

riding the coattail of black americans suffering come on,were gays taken from there homes sold,whipped not allowed to own land,vote?.sew your own coat.hurray for the 70% yes vote by blacks.they had the couragay to vote their beleifs.gay and black issues are like apples and peas

The Griper said...

i never could understand this idea that a civil union is different than a marriage.

a marriage is a civil union because it performed by a civil servant of the government or anyone else of a like status and authority.

a mariage is a religious union because it is performed by a member of the clergy.

that has always been what has differentiated them as far as i know. legally there is no other difference, is there?

to declare that a civil union is a different type of relationship is to redefine words for the purpose of ideology rather than for the purpose of determining rights.

repsac3 said...

Three words, Griper:

Separate, but equal.

(And the differences under US law between "marriage" & "civil union" make it less of a deal for those minorities segregated out of full benefits than segregated schools were, even...)

Donald Douglas said...

"...make it less of a deal for those minorities segregated out of full benefits than segregated schools were, even..."

I really take that as a personal slur, Reppy.

You yourself said that convervtives were the only ones making the black/gay rights comparison, but I've smacked that stupidity down in my post, and now you've proved you lying hypocrisy.

Now you actually have the gall to insult blacks who endured the brutal legacy of Jim Crow. If you knew history, you might fathom that Jim Crow is generally considered worse than slavery in many respects, especially the violence.

You have done dishonor to this blog, and your nihilist mayhem has reached new depths.

Shame on you.

You truy are the radical nihilist that I've identified all along.

Dennis said...

I will consider marriage for gays when they start producing, feeding, clothing, etc as a matter of course the next generation of children. Gays give up neither time, lost opportunity, themselves or all that is entailed in a male female marriage.
What I see is a bunch of selfish brats who want what they want without any of the responsibilities that go a long with raising the next generation.
Only a very few gays would ever give of themselves to raise children. You can see the selfishness in the "I am going to destroy everything unless I get my way" attitude. If this is not representative of the spoiled little brat then what is?
Gays want the benefits of marriage without any of the burdens involved. Society and humanity in fact will succeed without gays, but will not succeed with out the structure of marriage to bring the next generation of children to their proper place in society.
I have no problem with civil unions because it provides a legal structure, but marriage is about the continuation of humanity.
The real bigotry demonstrated here is the anti heterosexual, anti-religious hate speech and actions by a number of gays. There is a touch of the Gestapo in" You will do what I want or else."
We will get enough of that from the "brownshirts" that populate a significant number of Obama's followers.

Sarge Charlie said...

I am just a simple man but as I see it the people have spoken, marriage is between a man and a woman, get over it.........

Grace Explosion said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
repsac3 said...

I really take that as a personal slur, Reppy.

I wasn't aware you were ever in a segregated school... (Why a personal insult?)

You yourself said that convervtives were the only ones making the black/gay rights comparison, but I've smacked that stupidity down in my post, and now you've proved you lying hypocrisy.

No, I myself was the one who said conservatives were the only ones pretending anyone was arguing gay folks did, do, or likely ever will suffer the same amount as or worse than black people have in US history, as though there's no such thing as civil rights for any other minority (or majority, for that matter)... I stand by that.

I'll concede that I don't know enough about the conditions in black schools under Jim Crow, but to the extent that they were actually "equal" (some were, some weren't, according to the first person accounts found here), I'll stand by that statement, too.

At least in the case of black students/ white students in schools, the law mandated "equal," even if the law wasn't being followed as it should've been. There are benefits to "marriage" under US law that are not afforded to "civil unions" under US law... Once the law mandates equal treatment regardless of the gender one is attracted to, then we can be concerned about whether the law is actually being followed. Gay rights as concerns marriage haven't reached that far, yet...

Now you actually have the gall to insult blacks who endured the brutal legacy of Jim Crow. If you knew history, you might fathom that Jim Crow is generally considered worse than slavery in many respects, especially the violence.

Never insulted anyone, Nero, & never said anything about the treatment of blacks under Jim Crow, at all... I spoke about the mandates of US law at the time, & only regarding "separate but equal" education.

You have done dishonor to this blog, and your nihilist mayhem has reached new depths. Shame on you. You truy are the radical nihilist that I've identified all along.

A nihilist is...?
And my comment shows I fit the definition of nihilist because...?
(Let me know when you're able to finish those two sentences, & expand on 'em as necessary, rather than endlessly tossing out the accusation with nothing to back it up.)