Proposition 8: Before you Chop the Poles off the Tent

[Renaissance Man]

I'm sure a lot of people have taken a peek at this photo of two gay men in West Hollywood hanging in effigy Sarah Palin with a noose as a Halloween display, just four short days before the election. Just change the effigy to Barack Obama and wrap the two men at the bottom in the Confederate flag, and tell me what the response would be by many DU'ers?

For everyone that is suddenly calling people the "n" word and launching a full-scale blitzkrieg on the African-American community in California in response to the results of Proposition 8, think of this photo and how absolutely counterproductive it may have been in ensuring the defeat of Proposition 8.

Tolerance is something that is reciprocal. Also, the mere fact that what many consider to be a civil right was even placed on the ballot for vote based on popular opinion is horrible.

As Progressives and Liberals, if you don't want to this to happen again, a few things have to get done. One of those things, in particular, is that the GLBT community has to become a lot more understanding of the things that triggered the struggle for Civil Rights. Just a hint -- one of those things was widespread lynching of black men (in particular) in the Deep South.

There's a lot of work yet to be done.

[TexasObserver]

1. Your is comparison is grossly inappropriate.

First, hanging political figures in effigy is an acceptable action, no matter who the target is. Burning them in effigy, too.

Comparing the burning in effigy of a political figure who hates gays is not remotely the same as a couple of unreconstructed rebels burning in effigy a black politician because he's black.

EPIC FAIL on your part. Stay away from analogies. You're not good at them.

[Renaissance Man]

3. Welp.

I guess this is where we differ. As a black male, seeing an effigy of anyone hanging from a noose is not acceptable, at all. You may feel it is acceptable (due to Constitutional provisions), but freedom of expression also comes with responsibility -- something many people, all to often, fail to consider.

All of this ties back to one thing -- reciprocal hate. You can call it an epic fail (if you'd like). The fact is that many people will take offense to something as provocative as this.

[JI7]

8. there was nothing acceptable about what those guys did

[rpannier]

9. So...if I hang an effigy of Barak Obama and claim it's because I'm opposed to his policies then that

would be okay with you????

[TexasObserver]

17. that would be OK with the Supreme Court

You do realize the burning and hanging of effigies is protected as free speech under our constitution, do you not?

It's a matter of what the law is.

Your paradigm is much different from mine. I ask "what is constitutional?" You ask "what offends me?"

[hlthe2b]

22. No... hanging and burning in effigy is not acceptable action.

Period.

How many political assassinations, domestic terrorist and hate acts do we have to have in this country before we all come to realize that there is a line beyond which we must not step?



I don't think this isolated photo has anything to do with the very unfortunate vote on Prop 8, however.

[TexasObserver]

30. It's acceptable under the law, under the constitution.

Your personal feelings notwithstanding.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. I heard a disturbing story on Bill Maher's show Friday night.

One of the guests talked about how some black gays were being called the n-word by other gays when they were marching with the "no on 8" crowd in LA.

Just think about that for a minute...think about how it must feel to be a black person in the GLBT community in California right now.

There's a lot of anger out there and I'm very worried that people are stoking racial tension to the detriment of the Democratic Party.

Blacks make up 7% of the electorate in California and it's amazing to me how they are being attacked right now for prop 8. Never mind that a majority of Hispanics also voted yes on 8. Never mind that almost half of whites and Asians also voted yes on 8.

This is disturbing.

[Renaissance Man]

4. Right.

I don't live in California, but I do know many Progressive African-Americans in California who saw this same photo (and were disturbed) and voted no on Prop. 8.

[rpannier]

12. For some in the GLBT Community the anger comes from the dismissive way that many 'leaders' in the

AA community openly state that the Civil Rights movement based on race is a legitimate Civil Rights issue and for GLBT it is not.

[Cali_Democrat]

14. 'leaders' in the AA community....

I'm sorry, but I really hate when people say that. Just because the media says people like Jessee Jackson or Al Sharpton are AA leaders, it doesn't make it so.

AA's are perfectly capable of acting and thinking on their own and they don't need "leaders" to tell them what to do. I find it interesting the the media and certain individuals always refer to black "leaders" and not Hispanic "leaders" or white "leaders" or Asian "leaders."

The AA "leader" thing is a media creation. Don't buy into it.

[rpannier]

15. Actually

I put leaders in the little quotes as nod to them not necessarily being real leaders.

My apologies that it gave you the wrong impression.

[mitchtv]

40. Then how about Democratic leaders like Bonna Brazile

who worked hard to marginalize Gays within the national party?

[QC]

42. Brazile is an especially interesting case,

given that she is a (barely) closeted lesbian herself.

Our very own Roy Cohn, in a way.

[QC]

26. The people who did that are assholes. Period. Full stop. Case closed.

Notice how no one has defended them by saying that their actions have to be placed in a historical or cultural context, result from traditional beliefs, etc.

[justiceischeap]

28. Well, see it's that big number of "70%" that was thrown out there

They don't stop to think there's a reason the black community is still referred to as a minority. I can't say this for every gay community across the nation but the one's I've been active in, there is a lot of racism and intolerance within the gay community, just like any other community. I have a lesbian acquaintance who isn't a fan of bisexuals because if they so choose, they could have the "easy" life. It seems it's hard (again the communities I've been involved in) to get black folks involved and that creates another divide. Basically, it's a mess!

[Occulus]

31. Okay, you have been told this several times on several different threads now

and I doubt my saying it is going to change a motherfucking thing, but

WHAT WE ARE ANGRY ABOUT IS THE INORDINATELY HIGH NUMBER OF BLACK PEOPLE ***WITHIN THAT 7% OF THE TOTAL VOTE*** WHO VOTED YES ON 8, WHATEVER THAT ACTUAL PERCENTAGE MAY BE.

Stop "not getting it". The reason for our anger is blindingly simple to every fool paying attention.

[plaintiff]

35. Yes. Thank you.

Some people can't seem to grasp that we are pissed at the people who DID vote for Prop8. There are a lot of fools -not- paying attention.

[QC]

38. Sometimes people deliberately "don't get it."

That's the only possible explanation for this straw man argument being posted hundreds of times.

[Cali_Democrat]

43. Yes...but many here are only focusing on the AA community and not other groups.....

that voted for 8 in overwhelming numbers. That strikes me as odd. To quote The Bilerico Project....

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/11/race_sexuality_and_proposition_8.php

But I'm wondering why these folks are so caught up in the black voters, who obviously can't ever be persuaded on this issue because... well, because. There are so many other groups in the exit polling that voted for Prop 8 overwhelmingly (as in, more than 60%):

* The elderly (65+)
* Republicans
* Conservatives
* People who decided for whom to vote in October (but not within the week before the election)
* People who were contacted by the McCain campaign
* Protestants
* Catholics
* White Protestants
* Those who attend church weekly
* Married people
* People with children under 18
* Gun owners
* Bush voters
* Offshore drilling supporters
* People who are afraid of a terrorist attack
* People who thought their family finances were better now than 4 years ago
* Supporters of the war against Iraq
* People who didn't care about the age of the candidates
* Anti-choicers
* People who are from the "Inland/Valley" region of California
* McCain voters

Some of these groups supported Prop 8 far more than African Americans did, which makes me wonder why we're focused so much on race instead of any of these factors. In terms of predictive value, religion, political ideology, and being married with children tell us much more about how someone voted on Prop 8 than race does.

[cboy4]

5. What the fuck are you talking about with your smug, oh the

GLBT community has to become a lot more understanding of the things that triggered the struggle for Civil Rights. :wtf:

Yea, a lot of work has to be done, like you toning down your arrogance with the insinuation gays don't understand the black civil rights movement.

But thanks for the history lesson. Why I had no idea blacks were lynched in the South. Damn, what a revelation. :eyes: :eyes:

[PFunk]

6. The way I see it is this.

It's now becoming ovivous that if gays will have to find some way of bringing blacks and latinos along if they want to win this fight. Otherwise the opposition will now not only use these same groups to keep gays from getting them. And, if possible to fuck over progressive unity as they do.

[rpannier]

10. So what's the responsibility of the people on the other side???

Just curious what their responsibilty is? or does it fall only on the GLBT community?

[cboy4]

11. How do teh gays bring blacks and latinos along PFunk?

Do you give those minority groups such little credit to do the right thing?

All gay people are saying is this. It's very simple:

1. African Americans had to fight for their civil rights, and they should know better than to help strip another minority group of its rights .. considering what they went through in the 50's and 60's.

2. Never before in California history has a specific minority group been targeted and completely stripped of a legal right by popular vote. I mean, come on .. how fair is it for 90 percent of straight society to vote for the human rights of 10 percent of the gay population? Think of the odds.

3. If African American civil rights issues had been placed on the ballot for a popular vote decision, it's probable blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus and drinking from water fountains labeled, "colored," etc.

Pretty cut and dried.

[PFunk]

20. To be honest I don't know how (otherwise I'll be doing it)

However it must be done. Otherwise it will not only be harder for gays to get full rights. But the rest of us, starting with blacks and latinos (and other eithinics) will begin losing their rights as well. Some may find this offensive but I concider gays to be the typical canaries when it comes to equal rights. What happens to them eventually happens to other eithinic groups-then everyone else. So everyone has a stake in prop 8's defeat.

[HamdenRice]

21. It is this kind of abject ignorance, stupidity and narcissism that prevents alliances

"2. Never before in California history has a specific minority group been targeted and completely stripped of a legal right by popular vote. I mean, come on .. how fair is it for 90 percent of straight society to vote for the human rights of 10 percent of the gay population? Think of the odds."

Are you shitting me?

Do you really believe that?

Do you really think you can go into the African American, Latino (especially Mexican American) or Asian American communities in California and start a discussion about alliances with an opening premise like that -- that no other minority group has ever been stripped of a right by popular vote?

It's a non-starter. If you think that and express that view, you will have just lost even more African American, Latino and Asian votes.

Are you saying that Chinese businesses were never stripped of the right to operate in certain areas by California constitution? Are you saying you are unaware that Chinese immigrant men were denied the right to bring their families from China? Or has it just skipped your mind that Chinese by constitutional amendment were denied the right to vote or work in any civil service position in California?

Are you saying that Japanese Americans in California were never forcibly removed, forced to sell their homes and businesses, and put in desert prison camps because of popular hysteria?

Are you saying you don't believe that African Americans were forbidden to marry outside their race in California because of popular votes? Do you honestly believe there was never segregation in California as a result of legislation passed by majorities?

Are you so bereft of information that you are unaware that a California proposition initiative just a few years ago banned affirmative action by race at public universities, decimating the numbers of Black and Latino students in the University of California?

Do you really believe that Mexican were not discriminated against by popular majorities? Do you think that Mexican American farm laborers were not discriminated against by popular votes in small agricultural towns in California? Or did you think that before Ceasar Chavez organized the United Farmworkers that Chicanos just chose to live like slaves on California farms?

Do you really believe that shit?

Are you that ignorant? That clueless, that boneheaded? Or are you trying to be offensive?

And you have the added audacity to say African Americans should "know better."

Hello? Anybody home?

The lights are on, but there doesn't seem to be any human brain activity going on there in your post.

How does it sound to hear you make believe that your group is the only one that has ever been discriminated against in California? Think about how your premise would sound as a conversation starter in these communities.

Please try to use your brain for a minute and think.

[cboy4]

23. No,no, no ,,, you know good and damn well the examples

you've cited of these so-called majorities voting away civil rights are not in the slightest what I'm referring to!

Listen chump, if you wanna go at it with your little personal comments, we can do that, but I'll wipe your ass with the floor.

You know exactly what I'm referring to.

I'm talking about popular vote of the people idiot. Not popular vote of legislative body or court or any other institution .. I'm talking about puting a civil right, enjoyed by a minority, up for popular vote by the majority. (AS WHAT JUST HAPPENED IN CALIFORNIA.)

Are you telling me that people went out and voted by popular referendum to approve race-based restriction on marriages, before Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967)?!

Are you telling me that people went to the polls and decided to lock Japanese-Americans in World War II Internment Camps? Californians went to the polls and voted on that?

You're not even serious comparing Proposition 209 with Proposition 8 are you?

Please, you need to go back to your community college and at least do five minutes of research before the next time you decide to open your yap.

I'm happy to discuss this stuff with you, but when you lace all of your misinformation with insults and various comments, you can expect a very nasty fucking response in return.

I promise you that.

[HamdenRice]

24. You really are misinformed, which is why you will have trouble ...

participating in the building of alliances. Your premises are wrong. Many of the examples I cited are indeed based on California constitutional conventions and ratifications.

Moreover, majoritarian voting on a minority's rights is majoritarian voting on a minority's rights -- and it makes little difference whether it is by direct or representative democratic procedures.

You cannot go into the Latino, Asian, Native American and African American communities of California to build bridges by starting out with the premise that your group is the only one to have had its rights put to a vote.

Sorry you're angry, but that's the inescapable reality.

[cboy4]

25. Yes, there's a huge difference, so I'll say it again.

Never has a minority group in this state been singled out, targeted, had their civil rights placed on the ballot with withdrawal depending on how the majority decides to vote.

Stop saying there's little difference whether it is by direct or representative democratic procedures.

You are either out of touch or you simply want to pick a fight if you can't recognize there's a HUGE difference.

[HamdenRice]

27. You're simply factually wrong

When a person's mind cannot be changed by hard data, then there is no hope in educating that person. You will never be effective in building the bridges we're talking about.

Jim Crow Laws: California Close
1866: Voting
The 1866 California registry act required electors to complete voter registration three months before a general election. Naturalized citizens were required to present original court-sealed naturalization papers.

An 1878 act applying to San Francisco required each voter to register in person before every general election. Voters had to register in their own elector precinct. Because precincts were very small, if a voter moved he was required to re-register.

In 1894, California passed a constitutional amendment that disfranchised any "person who shall not be able to read the constitution in the English language and write his name." An advisory referendum indicated that nearly 80% of voters supported an educational requirement. A similar amendment was again passed in 1911.

From 1879 to 1926, California's constitution stated that "no native of China" shall ever exercise the privileges of an elector in the state." Similar provisions appeared in the constitutions of Oregon and Idaho.

1866: Voter rights
Required electors to complete voter registration three months before a general election. Naturalized citizens were required to present original court-sealed naturalization papers.

1866-1947: Segregation, voting
Enacted 17 Jim Crow laws between 1866 and 1947 in the areas of miscegenation (6) and education (2), employment (1) and a residential ordinance passed by the city of San Francisco that required all Chinese inhabitants to live in one area of the city. Four voting restriction laws were passed that targeted foreign born inhabitants, particularly the Chinese. Although school segregation was banned by 1880, this law was overturned in 1902, and included Asian children as candidates for separate schools. Similarly, a miscegenation law passed in 1901 broadened an 1850 law, adding that it was unlawful for white persons to marry "Mongolians." The legislation reflects the dominant society's growing anxiety over the steady numbers of Asians immigrating to California by the early twentieth century. An 1893 statute barred public accommodation segregation, with seven additional civil rights laws passed by 1955.

1870: Education
African and Indian children must attend separate schools. A separate school would be established upon the written request by the parents of ten such children. "A less number may be provided for in separate schools in any other manner."

1872: Alcohol sales
Prohibited the sale of liquor to Indians. The act remained legal until its repeal in 1920.

1878: Voter rights
The city of San Francisco required each voter to register in person before each general election in their own elector precinct. Because precincts were very small, if a voter moved he was required to reregister.

1879: Voter rights
"No native of China" would ever have the right to vote in the state of California. Repealed in 1926.

1879: Employment
Prohibited public bodies from employing Chinese and called upon the legislature to protect "the state…from the burdens and evils arising from" their presence. A statewide anti-Chinese referendum was passed by 99.4 percent of voters in 1879.

1880: Barred school segregation
Children of any race or nationality, from six to twenty-one years of age, entitled to admission to public schools.

1880: Miscegenation
Made it illegal for white persons to marry a "Negro, mulatto, or Mongolian."

1890: Residential
The city of San Francisco ordered all Chinese inhabitants to move into a certain area of the city within six months or face imprisonment. The Bingham Ordinance was later found to be unconstitutional by a federal court.

1891: Residential
Required all Chinese to carry with them at all times a "certificate of residence." Without it, a Chinese immigrant could be arrested and jailed.

1893: Barred public accommodation segregation
Unlawful to refuse admission to anyone with the price of admission to opera houses, theaters, museums, circuses, etc. Penalty: Injured person could recover actual damages and $100.

1894: Voter rights
Any person who could not read the Constitution in English or write his name would be disfranchised. An advisory referendum indicated that nearly 80 percent of voters supported an educational requirement.

1901: Miscegenation
The 1850 law prohibiting marriage between white persons and Negroes or mulattoes was amended, adding "Mongolian."

1902: Education
Repealed earlier law barring school segregation passed in 1880. In addition to black children, Chinese and Japanese youngsters were also prohibited from attending schools designated for white children.

1909: Miscegenation
Persons of Japanese descent were added to the list of undesirable marriage partners of white Californians as noted in the earlier 1880 statute.

1913: Property
Known as the "Alien Land Laws," Asian immigrants were prohibited from owning or leasing property. The constitutionality of the land laws were upheld by the United State Supreme Court in 1923 and 1925. The laws were justified as a means of protecting white farmers. The California Supreme Court struck down the Alien Land Laws in 1952.

1925: Barred school antidefamation
No textbooks or other instructional materials used by public schools could reflect upon U.S. citizens because of their race, color, or creed.

1929: Barred school segregation
Repealed discriminatory sections of earlier codes and provided that all children, regardless of race, should be admitted to all schools.

1931: Civil rights protection
Outlawed racial discrimination.

1931: Miscegenation
Prohibited marriages between persons of the Caucasian and Asian races.

1933: Miscegenation
Broadened earlier miscegenation statute to also prohibit marriages between whites and Malays.

1945: Miscegenation
Prohibited marriage between whites and "Negroes, mulattos, Mongolians and Malays."

1947: Miscegenation
Subjected U.S. servicemen and Japanese women who wanted to marry to rigorous background checks. Barred the marriage of Japanese women to white servicemen if they were employed in undesirable occupations.

1947: Barred school segregation
Repealed 1866 segregation law that required separate schools for children of Chinese, Japanese and Mongolian parentage.

1948: Barred miscegenation segregation
Repealed miscegenation laws. Prior to repeal interracial marriages were prohibited, but no penalties were attached to such marriages, or to interracial co-habitation, or to migration into California by interracial couples legally wed out of state.

1954: Barred public accommodation segregation
All citizens given right to full and equal accommodations in public places.

1955: Barred National Guard segregation
Segregation and discrimination of state National Guard prohibited.

1955: Barred public accommodation segregation
Misdemeanor for innkeeper or common carriers to refuse service to anyone without just cause.

[HamdenRice]

29. Forgot to add: By your logic, it's OK for the legislature to ban GLBT marriage?

That would make it ok?

alrighty.

[cboy4]

36. You are so delusional.....Or you have ADD. Or both.

State lawmakers rejecting marrige is not the same as puting something on the ballot and essentially saying, listen, only 10 percent of the population is gay, but go ahead you overwhelming majority and decide the civil rights of that very small minority group.

Yea, so fair. :eyes:

Yea, it's fine for lawmakers to vote to ban it because gay people can vote their reps out of office. I can't vote for the bigot out of society.

And by the way .. the the California State Legislature has approved same sex marriage the past two times it's come up recently. The governor vetoed it, but this time around, he endorsed No on 8.

You keep trying Hamden. I realize I pinned your ass into the corner, so I don't blame you for desperately trying to prove me wrong about something.

It's not going to happen.

[HamdenRice]

37. Dumbest. Post. Ever. Jim Crow was OK because it was passed by the legislature?

I suppose so is the anti equal marriage stance of conservative state legislatures like Mississippi. As long as it's not a popular vote, it's OK, right?

The silliness of your position speaks for itself.

[crappyjazz]

13. woopsie

you apparently didn't get the memo

you see, there are statistics showing that blacks and latinos votes did not pass Prop 8, so how is it you can say we need them if we want to win this fight? Apparently their votes didn't matter at all.

Of course some did vote for it, but we don't want to talk about that right? We're supposed to get over that. We're supposed to sit down and shut up.

[Occulus]

33. See, that's what I don't get

People seem to think we're somehow blaming the minorities for the way they voted, and blaming them for how the vote tally finally came out.

That's not it at all (for me, at least, and I'm sure many others). The anger I'm seeing is coming from how many individual people of those small percentage of minorities from withing those minority subsets voted yes.

We're surprised that of the small percentage of black voters, for example, a large proportion of that small percentage of overall voters voted yes.

How that equals out to racism, I really can't fathom.

[JI7]

7. we condemned those assholes doing this , Olbermann made him worst person in the world

[renie408]

16. Ummmmm....NO. Was the Palin effigy in bad taste? Yes.

Was it comparable to an Obama effigy displayed by southern rednecks? No. Mostly because rich white women have never been in any actual danger of being lynched by gay men.

And I don't really think that picture really influenced anybody to vote for prop 8, particularly Democrats.

[jonnyblitz]

18. wow, many of you AA's really do hate us if you think we all

should be stripped of our rights because one gay couple hung an effigy of some right wing politician in their yard. if you think THAT could be the reason so many AA's voted against us i am not sure how we cure such wide spread ignorance ESPECIALLY when members of your community, such as yourself, want to deny this AA bigotry exists and continue to blame the victim. this is sad. this is one nasty, hate filled bunch of spew you posted here. don't blame the gay community for that poll result. that makes no sense.

[JanMichael]

19. you actually think this photo of two guys and a tacky Halloween stunt

caused people to rush to the booth to vote against marriage rights?

Wow.

[GreenFiles]

32. So you're blaming the gay community?

You're an idiot.

[kevinbgoode]

34. Yes...it's all about the victims of today making more sacrifices, isn't it?

That one gay couple must work very very very hard to understand the civil rights struggles of the 70% of African-Americans who just voted to remove the entire gay community's constitutional rights.

[curse of greyface]

39. Hanging political figures in effigy is protected speech. nt

[baby_mouse]

41. All you are doing...

Is stirring up more shit.