The analogy between interracial marriage and gay marriage is a strong and relevant one. (At least in the context of political arguments/movements for their legalization in the US… not necessarily some larger context.)
The analogy between the travails of black people throughout history and the travails of gay people throughout history (not to mention Jews, women and various native/aboriginal groups) is not.
I’m basing it on the fact that blacks skew so much harder anti-gay than almost any other demographic. The relative newness of the gay rights movement doesn’t enter into it, because it’s just as new to blacks as it is to anyone else, and they’re still overwhelmingly opposed to it, while other groups have shown significant swings towards acceptance. You look at most other groups, and the center on this subject is just to the other side of acceptance. You look at blacks, and it’s way the hell over on the right. It’s going to take a hell of a lot more effort to move that center over the line for blacks than it is for anyone else. I don’t mean to suggest that we give up altogether, but is it worth it to abandon certain tactics, simply because they don’t play well with one single, relatively small, and massively hostile demographic?
And I know many straights who don’t want to have a family. Does that mean they shouldn’t have that option? Of course not.
I think the “newness” factor does enter it. How many people were talking about SSM just ten years ago? Because its so new, the idea that gays can and should be married hasn’t had that long to marinate. Unless you can show some stats that show that blacks have remained fixed in their ideas towards gays while others haven’t, then I have to question any assertion that blacks are somehow “hardened”.
And while I agree with you that blacks as a group are homophobic, it should be stressed that religion–which concidentally is practice disproportinately by anti-SSM whites–is an important confounder. Religion tracks also with traditionalism and resistance to change. Trying to appeal to those who don’t want to be on the “wrong side” of the issue 20 years from now is probably the most effective in people that are liberal to begin with. But social conservatives–be they white or black–will likely not be swayed by that argument. And that is the group who needs to be targetted, irregardless of race.
Anyone who sees the parallels between SSM and intermarriage is either in the choir or has one foot in it already. So making analogies to the black Civil Rights movement in order to advance gay rights, although apt in many ways, is ultimately an exercise in preaching to the choir. In other words, the returns on such a comparison seem small to me. I think there are better ways to effect change. Perhaps I’m wrong, though.
I think your mistake is by looking at this as a black-white issue instead of religious-social conservatism one. If the black Civil Rights movement taught us anything, it’s that seeking a broad coalition of support gets better results than putting limits on people based on their racial membership. Thirteen percent of the population is not small, and there’s certain enough diversity in that group to play with. All it takes is a little creativity and yes, hard work. But freedom isn’t free, so this is par the course.
Even if that is the common attitude, you don’t think that society’s prohibition of it lead gays to adopt that lifestyle?
No, I wrote it forwards. Homosexuals of old were not even able to live their lives openly, yet you think they should have been pressing for the right to marry. It’s ridiculous.
Unthinkable in the way letting a known pedophile be a kindergarten teacher is unthinkable. As in, people are so vehemently against the idea, and in such large numbers, that there’s no point in even broaching the subject. To even suggest you’re in favor of it would get people thinking there’s something wrong with you.
Enough people were talking about it twelve years ago that the Defence of Marriage act was passed in 1996. Enough people were talking about it eight years ago, when California passed Proposition 22 by a significantly higher margin than they did with Prop. 8. Since then, Californians have shifted significantly in favor of gay rights - except for black Californians, whose opposition remains unchanged. So if, in the course of ten years, you see significant increase in support of gay rights in most groups, but no change at all among blacks, I’d say that counts as a hardened opposition. Unless you’re arguing that blacks somehow missed the debate on the issue the last two times we had it, then “newness” doesn’t explain the increased antipathy they have towards gay rights, because the debate is equally new to them as it is to anyone else.
Doesn’t that apply equally to any argument you can make about gay rights? What arguments in favor of gay rights are there that gay rights opponents agree with? If they already agreed with our arguments, they wouldn’t be our opponents, would they?
Who said anything about putting limits on people based on their race? I’m not talking about excluding blacks from the gay rights movement. The argument has been put forward that we should not make comparisons between the black civil rights movement and the gay civil rights movement, because the comparison is off-putting to blacks. But the entire gay civil rights movement is off-putting to blacks, so why should we abandon this particular strategy, when really, it’s no less off-putting to that demographic than any other strategy we could use? The only reason this particular argument gets singled out is because a great many blacks resent the suggestion that they could share any sort of commonality with us. That’s the attitude that needs to be changed, and the only way I can think of to do that is to point out the areas in which we do, in fact, have things in common. And the main area there is that both groups have been at the butt end of social and political discrimination in this country. Which is exactly the comparison we’re being told to avoid. If we avoid that argument, we might as well abandond the attempt to convince blacks to support us altogether, because if that argument isn’t going to work, no argument is going to work. And if we’re going to give up on securing support from blacks, then there’s no reason not to use that comparison, because it can be effective in convincing non-black groups to support us.
Pardon the hijack: This isn’t necessarily against anyone particular in this thread, but on this board and in the Waking has anybody notice that the whole point of analogies and comparisons seem to be lost on people? Case in point:
Gays and blacks as a group have (in addition to overlap) a good bit in common, or A GROUP:
—Both have experienced systemic oppression
—Both are hated by people whose hatred comes more from emotion and insecurity and manipulation than by actual experience
—Both have to put up with the “some of my best friends are ____” crap from people justifying why they’re working to disenfranchise them
—Both have been subjects of unbelievable hypocrisy and ignorance by religious groups
—Both groups have arguably spawned a disproportionately high number of artists and creative people
—Both groups have arguably spawned a disproportionately high number of substance abusers
—Both have been (in the case of blacks) or are (in the case of gays) good for a vote from the masses of asses for politicians promising to do something about them
And of course there are other comparisons as well. There are also numerous differences of course, or GROUP B:
—Blacks, or African-Americans, are an ethnicity as well as a culture
—Blacks usually have the family unit as the basis of their community while with gays the family unit is often the least accepting circle in their life
—Blacks have a very unique history that is extremely important to current self-identity
—While I do not believe (and the vast majority of gays or scholars who study the issues of psychology and anthropology and other such disciplines) one “chooses” to be gay, one does choose at least to a large degree to openly identify as gay and most people are adults before they really reach this identity, whereas blacks are pretty much so identified from conception
It’s the usual Venn Diagrams stuff with some things unique to gays, some unique to blacks, and some overlapping.
Here’s what irks me: start a discussion comparing almost ANY two things such as this, or comparing Andersonville to Auschwitz or (actual exampe from a conversation last week) the *name recognition *as political dynasty of the Bush/Kennedy/Adams clans or modern day financial woes to the Depression, etc., and there are several people who will invariably rush out of the woodwork crying “False analogy! False analogy! No no no!!!”
Obviously Andersonville only imprisoned soldiers while Auschwitz imprisoned civilians, but the point is clearly that both had people who were dehumanized and skeletal and disease ridden; obviously the Kennedys and Bush’s and Adams could scarcely be more dissimilar in terms of their political stances, but in all three families the younger generations grew up wealthy, in the spotlight, and with tremendous baggage and tremendous prestige due to the family’s fame and reputation, and obviously the U.S. economy in 1929 is not the same as 2008 but there are some lessons applicable to each. I’m not disputing the differences, just irked at the people who seem to feel that in pointing them out they’ve also dismissed any similarities- I almost want to ask them “did you make it through high school and college without ever having to write a compare/contrast essay?”
Sorry for the hijack- it ends with the period.
Well said.
I am an activist from the inside out.
I attend the controversial Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival and advocate inclusion of “woman-identifying” instead of the restrictive “woman-born”. It is not a popular opinion in the majority of those in authority (owners/operators of the property and production company) or of a significant portion of the lesbian-separatist participants of the festival. But it is a) the right thing to do and b) an unenforceable rule that is easily subverted by transfolk and their allies there every year.
I ask for inclusion of trans people at the festival from within the festival as a legitimate and financially contributing participant ($375 ticket, usually attended by 2000-5000), and I really enjoy the festival. There is a huge amount of diversity there, and I do not fear the consequences of new policies that enforce nothing but cause a lot of complication and militant counter-factions of extremists.
I do not trespass or aid these more “radical” groups, but I do make it a point to cross the property line of the private festival to the protest camp across the road and speak to them. Let them know I agree with their right to attend, and that I openly advocate for their inclusion when presented a conversational opportunity.
I wear armbands and such in solidarity with the movement to include them.
I am a Civil Rights activist, and a LBGT Rights activist, a feminist, a scientist, an agnostic and all capitalizational uses and implications.
Wherever there are clashes within those movements, I find the inclusive center and start advocating for it outward.
That is what I will try and do, and that is what I’m doing now.
That wasn’t a hijack, that was the resolution.
You presented your argument as a matter of logic, but logic does reflect reality.
Not really. If the problem is ignorance, you can help dispel that by showing people that there is nothing extreme about gay people; they are regular people who just happen to prefer the same sex. If the problem is that people are simply resistant to change but harbor no extreme ill will towards gays, you can stress that gay marriage doesn’t take anything away from anyone else.
When your next door neighbor, your cousin’s best friend, your dentist, or even perhaps your minister is gay, it’s very hard to see them as undeserving of the things that you and other people take for granted. Social conservatives really need more exposure to gay people in an every day kind of way. Blacks need this exposure even more because black homosexuals (particularly males) that are culturally relateable seem fairly absent in the media. It’s in this way that the most progress will be made, and time plays a big part.
Again, I don’t think there’s anything wrong or even inaccurate about drawing comparisons between blacks and gays. I just don’t think it’s an effective argument for SSM when the vast majority of anti-SSM people view race and sexual orientation as apples and oranges, and will continue to view it in that way until shown otherwise.
It has less to do with it be off-putting and more to do with it being moderately counterproductive. If you want to liken the gay struggle to the black struggle in order to make headway for your cause, it seems like good sense to care about what blacks might think about it. What help does it do for gays to make this analogy if blacks are standing on the sidelines shaking their heads and grumbling?
The question is why have they been discriminated against? I don’t think blacks need to have anyone point out that gays have been dissed; that’s not a real mystery. The crux is that gay discrimination is seen as justifiable while racial discrimination is not. Why? Because being gay is a sin. Leviticus said so. Being black is not a sin because it doesn’t keep you out of heaven. In a homophobic mentality, gayness is seen as a moral perversion at worse, a psychological deviation at best. Being black may be seen as a state of inferiority, but it’s not treated like a pathology in and of itself. If we make gay marriage legal, then our children may convert to turn gayism, for Christ’s sake.
It may be obvious to you and me that this thinking is wrong, but not to someone who is homophobic. If you thought that being gay was equivalent to being mentally ill, or being possessed with demon, or even simply having a different ideological position, would comparisons to the black Civil Rights movement make sense to you? It wouldn’t to me. Blacks (and plenty of others) don’t see commonality with gays precisely because they don’t view race the same way as sexual orientation. You can argue that they should see them as comparable things until you are blue in the face, but it won’t necessarily change their minds if the only basis for this argument is discrimination.
Balderdash. What persecuted demographic group did MLK et al. have the luxury of comparing themselves to when fighting for their liberties? None readily come to mind. And did they not take the battle to the front doorsteps of white Southern society? Or did they shy away from them out of pessimism? If they could find success, so can gays.
Good points. Nobody contends that being black is a choice. So people, including non-black people, were open to the argument that people shouldn’t be discriminated against for something that they had no choice in being. But there are many people who believe (in my opinion incorrectly) that being gay is a choice gay people made. They therefore argue that gay people should just accept the consequences of the decison they made.
I think the validity of the “gay=black” argument is that minority groups seeking equal rights need to reach out beyond the membership of their group. They have to evoke a sense of empathy among people who are not directly affected by the discrimination they face - a sense of “how would you like it if it was happening to you?” So gays are seeking to reach out to blacks by saying that they both share the common experience of being a discriminated against minority. And at the same time, they’re trying to reach out to whites by saying in effect “It took you a few decades but you’ve finally figured out it’s wrong to discriminate against black people. We just want to point out that it’s equally wrong to discriminate against gay people. We could argue the case on its own merits one step at a time like the black people did but we’re hoping to take a shortcut by making this analogy.”
In an earlier thread about Prop 8, a few folks wondered why people were attending protests. Some of them felt that protests were counter-productive to the overall goals of the movement.
There seems to be no shortage of advice for the LGBT movement about what the movement (or activist judges, or activist legislators) should NOT do as a strategy for passing or overturning legislation such that homosexuals can legally marry who they choose and be ensured equal protection under the law. There’s also often a general agreement that to get this accomplished we just need to show people that we’re not scary or mentally ill or diseased or sin incarnate. That patience and good behavior will bring our just rewards.
Yes, there are pros and cons to any approach, but it is going to take all sorts of different points of view to fight this fight. What seems counter-productive to me is limiting those options.
The Israelites. He refers to the Promised Land, and like Moses, he’s been to the mountaintop. And I don’t recall Jews being as hostile to Civil Rights as blacks have been to gay rights. But of course, it’s not the same thing, is it? That’s the problem with analogies.
Also, please don’t use the word “irregardless” if you can possibly help it. 
I actually thought about the Israelites and this is a good point. But I believe the basis of this appeal had more to do with religion than history (if it was about Jews he could have talked about modern-day discrimination like the Holocaust…he reached for a biblical reference for a reason). The argument wasn’t so much that “it was wrong to discriminate against them so it’s wrong to do it to us” but rather “we shall overcome like they did because this is what God wants”. And this approach was effective because it exploited religious beliefs, and cast blacks as the protagonists in a sad, tragic story that social conservatives could relate to.
(Also remember that Jews != Israelites to the kind of people MLK was up against…Jews were despised, too.)
Sorry about irregardless. Could have sworn I wrote irrespective.
Which makes perfect sense to non-bigoted people. I’m just trying to explain why this “shortcut” has limited effectiveness among homophobes.
That’s why I said, of course it’s not the same. Neither are gays and blacks. But legitimate parallels could be made between what happened to the ancient Jews and what happened to blacks. Blacks, in fact, made just such an analogy, without getting a lot of shit for it. There is precedent for referring to the long battle for freedom and equality by others after centuries (or millenia) of oppression. The object of the analogy does not automatically have to be offended by it. I believe it’s similar to what gays are trying to do by analogizing their struggle with Civil Rights. Not to say, “We’re the same!” but to point out, as you said, a sad, tragic story that social conservatives could relate to, which might help them see that they are on the wrong side of history.
Israelites are the ancestors of the Jews, and I think this is cutting the analogy a little bit fine, espcially considering the events of the 1940s and 50s WRT the Promised Land. But again, you can quibble about the construction of the analogy, but it still existed and was used as a rhetorical device.
You’d think a comparison to Israelites would similarly cut no ice with bigots, but because it was Biblical imagery, and a legendary struggle, it was still used, quite effectively, by Dr. King. I think it’s natural to say, “Our righteous struggle is like theirs.” Not the same as their, but like theirs, and like them, we shall overcome. “Gay is the new black” is a smart-ass wording, a bit too flip, but the sentiment there is undeniably compelling IMO.
Well time will only tell, right? Honestly it would be interesting to hear from a religious, social conservative who was anti-SSM but changed their mind over time.
The analogy has strong emotional appeal, but it is a poor analogy generally because marriage was considered (in modern times) the union between one man and one woman. That’s what the word meant to people. I think we’ve come far enough as a society that we can redefine those terms and institutions, but it’s important to note that we will be redefining it.
But are you arguing correlation or causation? Do you think Black people are homophobic because they are Black? Are we homophobic for different reasons than White people are?
First, you did not deliver on what you claimed you were gonna back up; the comment I initially took issue with.
You have not demonstrated this has ever happened. At best, it has been a mitigating circumstance in the minds of people with a clear bias. That very well may be the case, and I agree that it is a despicable tactic, but the kid gloves come off when we are taking about a murder defense. Attorney’s will argue whatever they think will get their client off.
What’s more laughable is that your citations are pathetic. Two are from New Zealand. Two from Jamaica. The one that actual mentions an acquittal, does so in passing. Here’s the problem with that case. It wasn’t a gay panic defense. Here’s what the defendant claimed happened:
A bullshit story, but not evidence of a acquittal based on “gay panic”. You keep posting cites where a defendant’s punishment was arguably mitigated by this defense. The problem is that the majority of the defendants claim they were coerced at gun point, drugged, knocked out, etc. and were then sexually assaulted. That’s not a “gay panic” defense.
Most of those people were arguing that they were sexually assaulted. All those people are basically arguing self-defense. If the killer had been a woman arguing the same thing, we would have had a similar result. An actual case of someone using a “gay panic” defense occurred during the trial of Jonathan Schmitz (of Jenny Jones fame).
Of course. That’s why I acknowledged that earlier.
Which is part of the reason your comment below is so ridiculous.
Clearly, Warren was not talking about SSM, as you later admitted. The reason being that most people, many of them gay, never thought marriage was anything other than one man and one woman.
I understand the need to maintain clearly defined albeit hypothetical groups for the sake of argument, but reading some of these posts you’d think there were no gay black people. My friends and Craigslist’s Casual Encounters beg to differ.
When Jefferson wrote"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." was he including or excluding his slaves from that? Warren decided the concept applied anyway.
That’s the point, he identified a concept from an old document and applied it to a situation occurring in his time (race), in a way that the original writer may not have intended. We identify his concept and apply it to a situation that is occurring today (sexuality).