Skip to main content

There is no nice way to put this. There are quite a few people who label themselves liberals, progressives and Democrats who are bigots against gay both on this site and others like mydd.com.

They couch this bigotry in many forms. Sometimes, the bigotry is soft in that they will never say "fag" or "Gays go to hell," but they will certainly act that way. Other times, it will come about from clearly distorting and manipulating easily obtainable facts.

Let me give you an example of a bigot's perspective:

First, I'm against so called gay marriage. Why? If I have helped to revolutionize the church  (in my own way) and I've contributed to the cause of gay people - why am I against gay marriage. The answer is simple: its because those who were leading the charge were working for social change with no real or tangible benefit to the vast majority of American citizens. And the people of America had other things on their minds - the activists  knew this. And ignored it. It was simply the wrong time.

The gay community is productive, creative, generally higher income and by and large a nice thing to happen to your neighborhood if you're lucky enough to have it happen to you.  LINK

Some of you may be wondering- what's bigotted about the quoted comment? Well, the biggest problem is the writer is lying about the history of what happened with the gay marriage issue. The second biggest problem is the offensive assumption that all gays are well off white men.

Gay marriage amendments were not something thurst onto the American public by gays. It was something pushed onto the public by right wing activists seeking to use gay rights as a wedge issue. That  diarist gets it exactly backwards is one of the common tools of bigotry. The victim of oppression is the oppressor. The opressor is the victim. Gays are harming the majority by not being silent about the denial of our civil rights. The abused wife got in the way of her husband's hand.

If some of you do not know this, Rove & Co. felt they could run gay marriage bans as a wedge issue in the battleground states in 2004 against Kerry. That was one of the primary forces pushing gays to say "No." The more practical reasons are that we were being denied rights that only marriage allows. Thus, taking me to my second point.

The second issue is the assumption that all gays are well off white men, and that the issue of marriage is about well to-do people who gentrify neighborhoods. The reality is far more complicated. There are rich, middle-class and POOR gays. There are black, white, Asian and Latino gays. There are gays who are Christian and those who are not.  The issues regarding gay civil rights affect all gays, including the ones you don't see.

It is a statistic surprising even to those it describes: Same-sex couples in the Bronx are more likely to have children than those in any other New York City borough, according to a study released last month, and perhaps more than any county in the country.

LINK

Nor, are all gays able to afford the cost of lawyers to address the differences between marriage and civil unions where civil unions are allowed (in NY state they are not allowed):

The civil union law "invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children," concludes the final report, titled The Economic, Legal, Medical and Social Consequences of New Jersey's Civil Union Act.  "In a number of cases, the negative effect of the Civil Union Act on the physical and mental health of same-sex couples and their children is striking, largely because a number of employers and hospitals do not recognize the rights and benefits of marriage for civil union couples."

LINK

Thus, we come to one of the first signs of progressive bigotry against gays:

A) The bigotry is based on ignorance that is easily avoidable by a simple google search to correct the argument being made. As progressives, our first duty is to reality. We spent years barkin at the right for its faith based analysis. Yet, right now, the left seems infected by a large number of people uninterested in going beyond their opinion. It's not enough to believe something is the case. One should, as a progressive, research it. The fact that on other people's rights people are not doing basic research is a kind of bigotry. It says its not important enough to know why and how, but it is important enough to deny rights without thought by telling gays to STFU.

This is, by no means, the only variant of bigotry against gays I have seen here and at other blogs. The other form of progressive bigotry comes in the form of the false choice requirement. You know the argument - "If we address gay issues at all, the country will come to a halt regarding other issues."

In other words, if we discuss gay issues, Obama will fall a part.

Here is a list of LBJ's great society accomplishment relatively early in his Administration:

Tell that to LBJ, and his Great Society legislation (including Civil Rights) was any easier to pass:

Civil rights
 * Civil Rights Act of 1964
 * Voting Rights Act of 1965
 * Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965
 * Civil Rights Act of 1968

War on Poverty
 * Food Stamp Act of 1964
 * Upward Bound
 * Head Start
 * Model Cities Program
 * Economic Opportunity Act of 1964-and the programs it spawned, including:
    => Jobs Corp
    => Community Action Program
    => VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America)
    => Community Legal Services
Education
 * Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
 * Higher Education Act of 1965
 * Bilingual Education Act of 1968
Health
 * Medicare
 * Medicaid

LINK

I don't endorse everything that Paul Rosenberg or the commetors at OpenLeft say, but clearly, the argument that a President can not do more than one thing at once is crazy on it's face. So crazy , in fact, I am left to ask why even make such an absurd argument? One gets the feeling that the real issue is not whether Obama will prioritize gay civil rights issues, but that he is considering gay civil rights at all.

C) The third type of bigotry (another soft type of bigotry) is the bigotry of not listening to gay activists, but instead, trying to tell them to STFU up often by distorting their comments and/or positions.  At first, I thought this was simply a mistake. But the same cast of characters keep making the same mistake. The same arguments are used, and the analysis always really seem to be STFU." I am not listening to you."

In the Warren situation, for example, when someone repeatedly says their issue with Warren is not just gay marriage, but the totality of other issues (his support of a religious leader abroad who wants to jail gays, his calling us pedophiles, etc) it is mind-boggling to read a reply response only about gay marriage. It's as if the reader skims for gay marriage. Sometimes gay marriage is not mentioned at all.The response is to return to gay marriage. If you thinking, "well this is because of the gays," my response is, "no this is because you are rationalizing."

This is the majority not listening to the minority because of the power of the majority over the minority. It's one of the most basic of power dynamics that is classic bigotry. "I don't need to listen to you because I control your reality."

It is one of the core reasons why have equal protection. The founders understood that the majority ignores the minority, and this is part of how it holds power over them. Thus, to see this amongst people who think of themselves as "liberal" and "progressive" is stunning. You can not be progressive when you engage in this behavior. You are enaging in a core conservative approach to politics.

D) The other form of bigotry is using one person or another as a spokesmodel for all gay people everywhere. This is a variant of shut up . I am familar with it from racial situations, but now it has leaked into gay debates.

" Melissa Etherige is okay with Warren. So you should be." If you are not, then you are "whining" and looking for special treatment. One poster coined the term "model gays" or "magic gays" to reflect that thought processes that we are suppose to be limited by the acceptable gays as to how we are suppose to think and act. Its the "how dare you bother me, the majority, or inconvenience me."

When the protests were going on after Prop 8 passed, one woman emailed Andrew Sullivan saying that her right to go to a wine festival was harmed by the fact that gay people made her drive around them. She may as well have said, "let them eat cake." that would have been more honest.

E) A side note to this one is Obama is doing "x,y or z," and, therefore, see, "you were just complaining for no good reason." This bigotry is based on the idea that Obama is not a politicians, and that, again, gays are just whiners and complainers.

"There is nothing really to our concerns." Nevermind, that Marcos specifically made the point that actually the reason why politicians, including Obama, react is precisely because people make the noise to be heard.  The irony, of course, is that standing up to be heard is exactly what all progressives should be doing on all issues and not just this one:

This is, incidentally, why it's useful for progressives to criticize the president. Politicians respond to incentives. To noise. To anger. Warren, on some level, was a response to the loud protestations of evangelicals who believed the Democratic Party had no place for them. It's hard to see Robinson is anything but a response to progressive activists who sense that Obama was more willing to risk cross those who supported him than those who opposed him. Erase the anger from either side and it's not worth Obama -- or any president -- taking the risk to placate them. But this is a step in the right direction. This is genuinely inclusive. If it was the plan all along, the Obama administration sure did a good job keeping the secret. And if it wasn't, then equality activists have something to be proud of this morning. They changed the incentives.

LINK

I agree with Ezra by the way. This is why we complain. To get Obama to not only bring in a gay bishop, but to also reaffirm with a simply "yes" that he will repeal DADT. Would this have happened without us? Maybe. Do our actions create the pressure for it to happen? If history is our guide- yes. Look to LBJ's response to the civil rights movement.

I am frankly at a point where I no longer trust when people say they are progressive. You are not progressive if you accept these sorts of arguments without question. Part of being progressive is being well-informed. Researching issues and understanding facts to make sure that our views are alligned with reality rather than faith. That's my version of progressivism. I hope it is yours too.

Finally, I want to make something clear- I think Obama has some bigotry regarding the separate but equal approach he takes to marriage, but ultimately I support him. I support him because I think he will be good for moving gay rights forward, for the economy and for Americans in general. This is not about Obama. This is about the arguments that I have seen and my sense that there is some underlying issue with homsexuality that drives them.

Originally posted to bruh1 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:19 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Bigotry/Prejudice... (11+ / 0-)

    is a left/right thing

    it takes different forms, but I see plenty on the left....not as much or as extreme as on the right IMHO...but it's there

    •  bigotry isn't left.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      EdSF

      There are a lot of people who think they are liberal but aren't.  Most of the pie fights on this site are the result of the right/left clash, only they call themselves "pragmatic centrists".  To me, this is code speak for conservative lite.

      Everybody needs to push Obama and the Dems to the left because the establishment doesn't want them to move at all.  Big donors, lobbyists and insiders have access and influence.  The great unwashed only have the squeaky wheel, which makes them so, so "uncouth".      

      They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20 ~~ Dennis Kucinich

      by dkmich on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:37:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I find this form (29+ / 0-)

    D) The other form of bigotry is using one person or another as a spokesmodel for all gay people everywhere. This is a variant of shut up . I am familar with it from racial situations, but now it has leaked into gay debates.

    particularly offensive. Another variation on it goes something like this:

    Some gay men said over-the-top things after Prop-8, so all gay men are undeserving of support.

    This also

    This is the majority not listening to the minority because of the power of the majority over the minority. It's one of the most basic of power dynamics that is classic bigotry. "I don't need to listen to you because I control your reality."

    Drives me mad. The variation on this I find most galling is best summed up by "STFU or vote Republican," or "What are you going to do, vote for a third party candidate next time?"

    Thank you for so eloquently delineating this issue, bruh1.

  •  That's probably the stupidest (not nastiest, but (21+ / 0-)

    stupidest) explanation for opposing gay marriage I've ever heard.

    First, I'm against so called gay marriage. Why? If I have helped to revolutionize the church  (in my own way) and I've contributed to the cause of gay people - why am I against gay marriage. The answer is simple: its because those who were leading the charge were working for social change with no real or tangible benefit to the vast majority of American citizens. And the people of America had other things on their minds - the activists  knew this. And ignored it. It was simply the wrong time.

    Seriously, how fucking stupid can you get?

    "I gotta rec that sh*t, even though it is completely tasteless and rude."

    by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:52 PM PST

  •  where's (9+ / 0-)

    the tip jar?

    Peace thru hemp / hemp for life!

    by Boudicia Dark on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:27:46 PM PST

  •  I am so tired of my GLBT friends getting chased (27+ / 0-)

    around and beat up on this site I could scream or march in the streets. Whatever it takes. These bigots do not represent me or my feelings. I want to see civil rights and he** basic human rights afforded to everybody under the tent. Period.

  •  ... (21+ / 0-)

    Quoting from the quote:

    The answer is simple: its because those who were leading the charge were working for social change with no real or tangible benefit to the vast majority of American citizens.

    This person isn't a progressive at all.

    He is someone who supports the tyranny of the majority.

    God forbid the minority get something that doesn't benefit us all.

    NARAL and HRC endorsed Lieberman. Therefore, I can no longer endorse them.

    by LeftofArizona on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:34:49 PM PST

  •  The Core of (17+ / 0-)

    Liberalism, of Progeessivism, of Humanism is the OPPOSITE of STFU.

    IMHO.

  •  Thanks for writing this bruh1. (25+ / 0-)

    I'm sick to the death of the Groundhog Day anti-equality arguments around here.  They're exhausting me.

    Can someone please explain to me how there can be a "moderate" position on equality??

    by browneyes on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:35:58 PM PST

  •  Arggghhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (24+ / 0-)

    The answer is simple: its because those who were leading the charge were working for social change with no real or tangible benefit to the vast majority of American citizens. And the people of America had other things on their minds - the activists  knew this. And ignored it. It was simply the wrong time.

    This (quoted initial) comment really pisses me off.

    When is the right time to fight for a basic civil, and may I add, human right???

    Since when asking for your basic right dose not benefit the public in general? What a load of BS.

    Would that commenter advise MLK during the roaring 60's to hold back a little because it does not "benefit the vast majority of the American people" ?????? WTF???

    If anything, insisting that your right should be benefits the entire "vast American people".

    America without fighting for individual rights is not the America I have decided to call my home.

    I am a white straight guy. I don't have gay friends (at least not that I know of), and I must confess that for a while I was opposed to gay marriage.

    Why? Because I was stupid, that is why.

    The more I thought about it, and the more I saw the type of legal and social benefits marriage has brought to me and my wife (health benefits is a glaring example) I have become more aware of the fact that many Americans can not enjoy these simple rights that we take for granted  - just because they love the "wrong" person.

    How do some people like to say? F_ck this s__t!!!

    The current situation is wrong in the most pure aspect of the word wrong, and it is sad that people will go fighting and putting their lives in danger when a species of a rare caterpillar faces extinction (not that it is not important) yet fail to see the abuse heaped on people in their own communities right under their noses.

    Sorry that my comment is long, but damn it, whenever I see people "advising" the gay community from the bottom of their "progressive" heart to hold off the fight I feel an aneurysm developing in my brain and I must follow the advice of my doctor.....  

  •  I think you make some interesting points overall, (0+ / 0-)

    and have captured the feelings of many, but a couple of your examples of bigotry are suffering pains from stretching way too far: D & E. If these are bigotry, then many of the more prominent LGBT diarists and posters here have been engaging in rampant bigotry against those who wish to support them but have some differences in ideas. I do not believe that they have been engaging in bigotry, but using your model they are spectacular bigots.

    Do NOT feed the change trolls! -- jdw112

    by jdw112 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:52:48 PM PST

    •  D is unquestionably bigotry (11+ / 0-)

      of a sort that has been around for a very long time. It's the classic we've all seen at some point, the teacher who points to the African American in a class and asks for the "black perspective" on an issue.

    •  Somehow your credibility (11+ / 0-)

      on the overall issue of inflamatory homophobic comments doesn't really carry much weight.

      •  I can't read that comment. Would you please (0+ / 0-)

        blockquote it here?

        Do NOT feed the change trolls! -- jdw112

        by jdw112 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:56:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't (9+ / 0-)

          quote hidden comments.  There is a reason why they're hidden.  It was the comment you made about the young man who was shot on New Year's by the Bart Police.

          •  That was inflammatory and homophobic? (0+ / 0-)

            By saying that posters here tend to care more about israelis and gays who are injured? Wow. That is a pretty low threshold for homophobic. What about that comment is an "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality"?

            Do NOT feed the change trolls! -- jdw112

            by jdw112 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:59:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  jdw112. Black woman here. Back slowly away from (9+ / 0-)

              the table. Keep your hands out in the open where we can see them. I would bow out if I was you. Fake a stomache ache or a pressing engagement. That's all I am saying 'cause I don't have your back on this issue.

            •  What I said was (8+ / 0-)

              that your credibility on the issue was lacking, and I stand by that statement.  Remember, your commment and diary history is public.  

              •  Yes, I posted them for a reason. I do not care (0+ / 0-)

                who reads them.

                Do NOT feed the change trolls! -- jdw112

                by jdw112 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:05:33 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  your comment is pretty bad (10+ / 0-)

                  do you not see why?

                  •  It is a simply comparison to how the site treats (0+ / 0-)

                    different groups of people on similar matters. It does not contain hate for any other group. Pointing out a difference in approach amounts to hate or homophobia?

                    Do NOT feed the change trolls! -- jdw112

                    by jdw112 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:08:28 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The problem with it is that its not true (8+ / 0-)

                      of everyone.

                      I make a care to be as specific as possible and not say "this site" or "all progressives."

                      What you are saying is not true of everyone.

                      I also might add that you make a false comparison. Do you honestly think people care more about gays here than they do African Americans or other groups? Seriously? I mean  - what diary are you in right now? We are in a diary in which I am tellin gyou a fairly large subgroup of posters when it comes to gay issues will say "suffering, what suffering?"

                      let me give you an examplep someone put up a diary of the hanging of gays abroad and the bashing of gays a couple of years ago. That poster was universally attacked not because of the violence portrayed but because they were denied that hte violence was all that wide spread.

                      When it comes to hate crims in American gays are second only to people of color when it comes to violence, and thats in part because we do not know the full extent of violence against gays. Many do not report it.

                      So th e notion that this site is somehow overly sympathetic to gays is bizare. I can't speak to ther Israeli issue because gehnerally I have given up on both sides on the issue .

                      BU ton gays- you cant be serious.

                      •  I would just add that (6+ / 0-)

                        hate crimes against gays are on the rise-- and rapidly-- and when you consider the percentage of the population that is gay, per capita hate crimes against gays are higher than against people of color.

                        Yet what bruh1 says is true: a great many people here would have you believe that hate crimes against gays are not an issue, or is one that we, as a community, exaggerate.

                      •  Even if everything you say here is true, that (0+ / 0-)

                        would make me stupid, not a homophobe. It would make me guilty of poor judgment, but never a hatred of gays and gay issues.

                        Do NOT feed the change trolls! -- jdw112

                        by jdw112 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:33:45 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  homophobia, just like racism (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          musing85, EdSF, jdw112

                          can be a product of ignorance or hate. The person I quote above in my diary does not hate gay people. He's just ignorant. Also, as my great grandmother used to say , "never be proud of ignorance." I think some problem here is your definitions and research. Its fine not to k now something, but you really should not make sweeping statement. I am the pot talking to kettle here. I do what I am tellin gyou no tto do. But I am tellin gyou that as a piece of good advice. take it for what its worth or not.

                        •  Listen honey (2+ / 4-)
                          Recommended by:
                          ge0rge, jdw112
                          Hidden by:
                          musing85, homogenius, Bronx59, eamonsean

                          If you don't pick up a sign and fall in line with this, you are a homophobe to them.

                          No disputing.

                          No disagreement.

                          Just smile and wave.

                          Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law. James Baldwin

                          by evilene689 on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:06:31 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Actually (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        musing85, EdSF, abrauer

                        In terms of the rate of hate crimes based on bias, anti-black hate crimes is 4th behind anti-Jewish, anti-GLBT and anti-Islamic hate crimes. In terms of raw numbers, anti-black hate crimes are #1, but the African-American community is larger than the three communities above and when the numbers are crunch into a rate per discrete group, they surpass African-Americans in rate of victimhood. I'll also note that compared to other minorities, hate crimes against gays tend to be much more violent with the rates of simple and aggrevated assault against gays being much higher than for other groups and the rate of intimidation against gays being sandwiched between that for Jews and African-Americans (and Muslims).  The Jewish community is the most victimized in crimes against property including a rate of vandalism against them that is five times greater than that of the second highest group (GLBTs) and seven time greater than the third highest group (African-Americans). See my diary late last year on the 2007 Hate Crimes UCR. I'll probably repost that diary in the near future as three of the 14 distinct commenters asked for me to do so after the election. I posted the diary shortly after the report came out, but it was in the middle of the crunch at the end of the election and hardly got noticed.

                        There are 10 kind of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't.

                        by craigkg on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 07:33:00 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Actually, this is bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                          In terms of the rate of hate crimes based on bias, anti-black hate crimes is 4th behind anti-Jewish, anti-GLBT and anti-Islamic hate crimes.

                          What YOU ARE CALLING "hate crime" simply doesn't rise to the FACTUAL definition of the term.  When states as allegedly liberal as New York, Illinois, and Wisconsin have over 35% of their black boys failing to graduate from high school, THAT IS CRIMINAL, and the criminal responsibility perpetratin' THAT does NOT lie with the boys themselves, nor with their parents.  THAT IS SOCIETAL HATE and THAT IS A CRIME.  WHEN YOU GET Jewish, LGBT, or Islamic men over-represented in your prisons or dying years younger or being felon-disfranchied at rates of 20%, THEN YOU CAN TALK TO ME about who is hated and who is a victim of crime.  UNTIL then, SHUT UP.

                          And will bruh21 please NOTE THIS in asking whether people HERE do or do not "care about" black people as much as they do about....

                          The road to hell has not YET been paved with Republicans, but it SHOULD be -- Corrected BumperSticker

                          by ge0rge on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:37:43 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  on property crime (0+ / 0-)

                          The Jewish community is the most victimized in crimes against property including a rate of vandalism against them that is five times greater than that of the second highest group

                          Sizing the communities and computing the statistics per PERSON is a MISTAKE!!
                          Before you can have property crime, you have to have property!! The property crime being perpetrated against black people is that WE DON'T have any property!  The median net worth of black families in this nation by the end of the Bush administration was down to ALMOST ZERO!!
                          THAT is the crime and the rate at which THAT is occurring to black Americans DWARFS this!!

                          The road to hell has not YET been paved with Republicans, but it SHOULD be -- Corrected BumperSticker

                          by ge0rge on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:40:48 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  OF COURSE they do (0+ / 0-)

                        Do you honestly think people care more about gays here than they do African Americans or other groups?

                        I know it for an absolute fact.  The proof is loud.  The fate of my last diary on Burris is certainly part of that. The fate of anyone who tries to allege the relevance of race TO ANYthing around here is an even bigger part.
                        You just haven't been around for the wars.
                        Everybody here who is both gay and black really ought to try participating in both arenas just so he will  be able to make a fact-based comparison.

                        The road to hell has not YET been paved with Republicans, but it SHOULD be -- Corrected BumperSticker

                        by ge0rge on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:34:24 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  oh dear (8+ / 0-)

              it appears that the lesson was not learned the first time around.

              I can only echo others' advice and suggest you quietly drop the issue.

            •  BTW, you got 49 HRs (9+ / 0-)

              on the comment.  Off hand I'd hazard a guess that it was inflammatory and homophobic.

              •  Fine. (0+ / 0-)

                Do NOT feed the change trolls! -- jdw112

                by jdw112 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:13:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  The comment mentioned israel, so I am an (0+ / 0-)

                anti-Semite too?

                Do NOT feed the change trolls! -- jdw112

                by jdw112 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:14:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not Jewish so I don't consider (6+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  musing85, EdSF, Predictor, Pender, browneyes, jdw112

                  myself any sort of expert on that and I'll defer to others.  However, I can tell you that, as a lesbian, I was heartily offended by the comment.

                  •  My final remark: (0+ / 0-)

                    When member of the LGBT community compared their treatment as lacking with respect to other communities, were they trolling or racist? No. They were pointing out injustices perceived on the site. I compared the treatment of a black issue to other issues here at DKos and I am a trolling homophobe anti-semite.

                    Do NOT feed the change trolls! -- jdw112

                    by jdw112 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:18:47 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If you don't see the difference (6+ / 0-)

                      in the two situations you've cited (on the one hand, pointing out that the LGBT community still lacks basic protections that most other minorities have, and on the other hand, your perception-- ironically stated in a diary that was at the top of the Rec list and produced over 1400 comments-- that a particular issue wasn't getting attention on the site), I'm really not sure anyone will be able to explain it to you.

                    •  Your trolled comment (6+ / 0-)

                      was taken in the context of all your other comments, as well as your diary on the subject.  People, when taking someone to task in that fashion, if they're being responsible, look at your history.

                      •  My diary was supporting of LGBT issues. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        DMiller

                        I was only curious about expectations of Obama. If you read it and tell me it was truly homophobic I swear to god I will never post on DKos again under this UID or a sockpuppet.

                        Do NOT feed the change trolls! -- jdw112

                        by jdw112 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:24:29 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I didn't say it was (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          musing85, jessical, Predictor, jdw112

                          anti-gay or homophobic (I have it up on another screen right now).  Honestly, you keep jumping to these huge conclusions.  

                          I said that before I down rate anybody (unless they're just being a huge jackass) I check their posting history.  That diary is part of your posting history.

                          •  My posting history contains much love and support (0+ / 0-)

                            for LGBT issues. The only thing I usually get beat up for is thinking that Obama is taking the right path.

                            Do NOT feed the change trolls! -- jdw112

                            by jdw112 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:28:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yea this statement (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            musing85, EdSF, Predictor

                            right here is full of "love and support."

                          •  Because people were expecting blood. I think that (0+ / 0-)

                            post lead to my diary. I can support LGBT issues and simultaneously wish for the LGBT community to give Obama a chance to serve them well before giving up hope, as some were calling him a bigot and other such names.

                            Do NOT feed the change trolls! -- jdw112

                            by jdw112 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:35:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You don't get it (5+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            musing85, DMiller, EdSF, Predictor, jdw112

                            my point is that you have a way of framing things that is needlessly inflammatory. It reads as homophobic.

                            Imagine if I said "the only way black posters here will be happy is if all the police involved in the shooting are strung up by their balls and shot in the back."

                            It would be an appalling way to express the sentiment that I thought (and I don't think this, incidentally) that people here were over-reacting to the shooting.

                            If you don't want to be perceived as being anti-gay, perhaps you should cool it with the over-the-top, inflamatory rhetoric.

                          •  Look, were you here (7+ / 0-)

                            during the McClurkin debacle?  It was pretty ugly.  It was also the reason that I did not support Obama until he clinched the nomination.  There was another gay incident, but it's slipped my mind right now.

                            In any event, the Warren situation isn't isolated.  My fear is that it's part of a pattern.  Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice ....

                            You bet the gay community is screaming right now.  If we weren't no movement would have been made whatsoever and there'd be no gay bishop speaking in a pre-inaugural address either.

                            One thing we learned from the AIDs crises is that to get politicians to pay attention you have to make them very uncomfortable.  I realize that those on this site that love Obama don't like to see him made uncomfortable, but there are those of us who think that he's just another politician.  Sure, he's a democrat, and I'm really happy about that, but don't kid yourself, he's just a politician.

                          •  I was not here for that, unfortunately. It is my (0+ / 0-)

                            fault. I truly believe PE-Obama will try to do good things for the LGBT community. I also support the LGBT community but I get frustrated when PE-Obama is ridiculed for even reaching out to enemies of the LGBT movement, because it is what I would do if I could make things right. I get frustrated because he has not even had a real opportunity to tackle the issues but many people have given up. I supported this type of approach to problem solving before I knew B. Obama existed, and I continue to support it.

                            At any rate, I see that people here have formed impressions of me. It happens. I take full responsibility. I am stubborn at times, but I harbor no fear of gays or jews or any community, with the exception of police officers.

                            Do NOT feed the change trolls! -- jdw112

                            by jdw112 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:50:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I certainly haven't (6+ / 0-)

                            given up.  But I have every intention of holding Obama's feet to the fire on gay issues as strongly as I can during the first year of his presidency and his first term.  I like the idea of an omnibus civil rights bill for gays, which includes legislation for DOMA, ENDA, DADT, immigration, eqalizing federal civil rights for civil unions, etc.,  Why do it piece meal?

                          •  I could get behind that but I think it would take (0+ / 0-)

                            more Warren-like efforts, which would cause plenty of turbulence even if it was intended to deliver the omnibus bill.

                            Do NOT feed the change trolls! -- jdw112

                            by jdw112 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:56:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

    •  bigotry is not limited to the majority (10+ / 0-)

      in many cases the minority will accept the assumptions of the majority.

      In Kings day, he was called all kinds of names by other black preachers who felt he was pushing to hard, etc.

      D) especially is a form of bigotry. Its based on the idea that one gay person represents all rather than whether the arguments are valid or not. Etherige was a bludgeon rather than an actual argument on substance.

      E) is often a form of bigotry based on "your pains are not real" or "you are faking it." Often the majority will think that the suffering of the minority is not real. The minority will even take on that belief. Again, an analogy. The AMA has conducted studies to show that pain suffered by blacks when they go to doctors of all colors are often under medicated because the doctors discuss their suffering. They have left empathy for it. The same is true here. You are just whining is really not a valid argument given the circumstances.

  •  Spokesmodel Melissa Etheridge... (9+ / 0-)


    ...last week on NPR:

    It is about reaching across. We cannot say that this is us, and this is them. I believe I understand Obama's choice here. I believe that Barack Obama wants to be the president of the entire United States. Pastor Rick Warren reached out to him, brought him into his church during the campaign, which outraged many members of his church yet he reaches across and I think this is Obama reaching back and going we can disagree on things yet we can still all move forward, we need to get past our differences and I just want to make sure that as the liberals and progressives and democrats or whatever you want to call us that are moving into this new time with this new president that we do not say okay well they the evangelicals who want to say such horrible things about gays they have to stay over here and we're not going to let them in. That makes us no better than the last administration.


    Yep, according to Melissa, opposition to Warren = Bush/Cheney.

    Then, when asked about the Warren incest/pedophile quote...

    (Laughs) Yes it, and I don't think he's alone there. I think there's many many people who think that if we let them gays get married it's going to open the door to all kinds of crazy stuff. Just because he thinks that does not mean I have to not speak to him or I don't ever want to be in his company. (Laughs)


    Finally, asked about their meeting each other:

    Oh yes,  we had a crazy experience at the Muslim Public Affairs Council conference. They invited him and me not knowing that it would be such a dichotomy at the time. So we met, we spoke, he's a fine person.


    Sad to say, I prefer the open bigotry over listening to this clueless tool any day.

    p.s. I'll suggest one variation on the type of bigots listed above: the bigot who lies about the facts so as to make it seem not so bad (i.e., the Warren believes in civil unions lie).

    p.p.s. One problem with Robinson: his claim that he's there representing 'all of us in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community'.

    He has no right to make that claim.

    The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. - H.L. Mencken

    by two roads on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:59:44 PM PST

  •  Today on this subject (7+ / 0-)

    I was told by a commenter that it's unwise to condemn someone from a minority position???

    As if.

    This is about equality for all, period. End of sentence.

    Great diary, and I'm off to bed. Night night, all.

    They may call themselves Republican, I know a Dalek when I see one.

    by high uintas on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:04:27 PM PST

  •  Oh hell, I get the exact same treatment from (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DMiller, jessical, TheLoneliestMonk

    non-Black Progressives day in and day out. And a Jewish American has the same experience as done a White dude from the South or a woman or a young person or anyone belonging to a group that is laden with several stereotypes.

    Everyone get's treated like this in our American society. It's not good. It's bad. But if you really want to address it and end it, call out everyone on all their crap and let us all collectively stop doing this shet to each other.

    Huh ?

    "And you know, I couldn't agree with them more. I couldn't disagree with you. I couldn't agree with you more" that McCain is a confused old man

    by WeBetterWinThisTime on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:18:31 PM PST

    •  It's certainy not unique to any one minority (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, DMiller, jessical, EdSF, eamonsean

      but I still think it's worth contextualizing for each group that it happens to. In other words, I think bruh1's calling out is valuable.

      •  I don't think it works because the diarists (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jessical

        involved usually just ends up getting called out for their own shortcomings on other things by people who will check out his or her past comments and so on and so forth and no one ends up changing their attitude in the end. We just fight all the time. But, hey, I'm all in for any attempt at societal reconciliation, I just don't think this particular kind  of method where we call out and blame others is getting us  anywhere.

        "And you know, I couldn't agree with them more. I couldn't disagree with you. I couldn't agree with you more" that McCain is a confused old man

        by WeBetterWinThisTime on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:33:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If we don't air grievances (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, ganymeade, jessical

          I think they tend to fester. I'm pretty sure no good has ever come from festering grievances.

        •  it is well past time... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bruh1

          ...for a daily kos survivor show.

          ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

          by jessical on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:37:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  If black folk did not fight tooth and nail (8+ / 0-)

          every step of the way despite what each generation thought was "just asking for too much" or "wasting time" a) I would not be here now with my degrees behind my name an dObama would not be President. I say all that to say I disagree. the point is not that a solution is going to happen over night. The poiint is to shine light on what is hidden and implicit by making it explicit. Each time we do that we make it a little harder for it to continue the way it has before. Or, if you prefer- this is my own version of the Overton Window.

          •  Oh well that's fine. Good luck to ya. (0+ / 0-)

            I'm not poo pooing you, I just don't think it's effective and I don't see any comparison between you and your example, but hey, like I said. It's all good. At least you know, you're trying.

            "And you know, I couldn't agree with them more. I couldn't disagree with you. I couldn't agree with you more" that McCain is a confused old man

            by WeBetterWinThisTime on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:57:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  History is proves you wrong (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musing85, ganymeade, abrauer

              Part of the problem here is you are talking from your experience, but I am saying overtime, your experience has been proven to not be the case.

              If you want to understand why our society has regressed, you need to read about the overton window. It explains why so much of conservativism has been able to dominate.

              Overton Windown:

              "The degrees of acceptance of public ideas can be described roughly as:

              Unthinkable
              Radical
              Acceptable
              Sensible
              Popular
              Policy"

              LINK

              This process over time is how gays have gained more and more acceptance.

              Simple example- gays kissing on TV. Back in the 80s and 90s this would have been unthinkable. But slowly over time it has gained frequency and acceptance.

              In reverse, making Warren's ideas unacceptable as the norm, has the same value towards gay civil rights.

    •  I didn't say it was unique (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, DMiller, ganymeade, jessical, EdSF, mjbleo

      I am black and gay- so the idea that I would think its unique to race is pretty hillarious. In fact, I grew up poor (as in no running water in my house poor) and let me tell you- the poor get the same crap.

  •  I sometimes feel like (13+ / 0-)

    straight liberals (and others too) love us, until we start having a sex life or getting with each other.... then, not so much.  I find that the limit of real empathy (not lip service) sometimes is reached when we are forward about or celebratory of the societal taboo of sexuality.

    I think this stems maybe from the idea that it's just a taboo, straight or gay sex is naughty according to what so many people in so many cultures are taught from birth, so when along comes this minority (us) that has as its raison d'etre a concept relating to sex: we are defined by the sexual behavior we display with those of the same gender, after all, and when you add it it the sort of exoticism or fascination folks get to feeling about stuff they've never themselves done, the reactions can get cognitively dissonant crazy fast.

    I feel maybe the taboo-triggers all go off at once when the rubber hits the road (sorry for the awful, unconscionable pun there) with us, when we become activated sexually in a sort of overt way, all horny-snuggly (or even just publically affectionate in too hot a way) around a partner or a lover is when I have sensed the most discomfort coming from people who ostensibly value us and want to see us humanized by the society at large at most moments.

    Sorry for the ramble, just one (gay) man's take.

    "Some of you are going to die... martyrs, of course, to the Freedom that I will provide!"

    by emperor nobody on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:18:34 PM PST

    •  Fair (9+ / 0-)

      Emperor,

      Your comment is fair.  I have the same feeling all the time.

      Gay sex = "icky" to a lot of straight people.  Well, you know what?  Cunnilingus is icky to me, but I would never EVER base how I feel about a person who performs that sexual act.

      And I can assure you that as demonstrative as gay men and lesbians can be sexually, I am faced with the reality of heterosexuality every time I see wedding rings or biological children or hear stories about the peek-a-boo nightly that was received as a gift on Valentine's Day.

      NARAL and HRC endorsed Lieberman. Therefore, I can no longer endorse them.

      by LeftofArizona on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:24:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That was a brilliant comment (11+ / 0-)

      if that's your rambling then you are a better writer than me.

      I have nothing to add , but that I agree. The flip side of this is when we internalize the societal view of our sexualityand it becomes all encompassing such that we are nothing but sexual beings. It took me until my late 20s to realize that this is an integrated part of a greater whole, but first I had tow ork out all of the societal baggage you discuss plus comment to my own views of myself and my sexuality- and finally say to myself,  "I aint got nothing to prove to anyone."

    •  On a thread earlier today (5+ / 0-)

      I drew the wrath of a particularly mean-spirited Kossack who could think of no insults dirtier and more demonstrative of her contempt for me than to make references to me sticking things up my butt.

      When I HRed her for her homophobic slurs, she at first simply did not see that she had written anything that might be offensive.  Then when she finally got it, she fell back on the defense that she was just using common rhetoric and I was choosing to interpret her comments as homophobic.  Yep, she was the victim.

      Oh, and her brother is gay and she supports LGBT rights so she can't be a homophobe.

      I didn't bother to point out to her that the way my husband shows the purest expression of his love for me is by sticking his thing up my butt, and I love it, because that would have made her head explode.

      You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

      by abrauer on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 11:20:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nah. (1+ / 2-)
        Recommended by:
        ge0rge
        Hidden by:
        leonard145b, eamonsean

        I wouldn't have been shocked at all.

        Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law. James Baldwin

        by evilene689 on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:59:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That commenter you referred to is a troll... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        homogenius, abrauer

        ...not a Kossack -- nothing Progressive about it as it's bigoted on so many different levels.  And I notice that, after you burned its bum last night, it caught a nap after midnight, then tormented by the burn, couldn't sleep, and got up and went right back at it and you this morning.  I hate to admonish you, especially after watching you adroitly apply the burn, but maybe you're just "feeding" that particular troll here? Leave it alone and it'll wither here from lack of attention.  They always do.

        39 Years Of Yellow-Dogging And Then 1 Year Of WTF

        by Larry Bailey on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:09:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Valid feedback, thanks Larry (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, Larry Bailey, homogenius

          It's a bully who, like all bullies, stands ready to cry victimhood when you call it on its bullshit.

          I enjoy troll hunting, perhaps too much.  It's a sadistic streak I share with Cheney: I love killing small animals with overwhelming fire power from the comfort of my home office.  The only difference is my targets deserve what's coming to them.

          You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

          by abrauer on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 06:23:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  What are your credentials (0+ / 0-)

          for figuring out what "Real Negresses" are?

          You seem very interested in dehumanizing "just a troll" me, for some reason.

          Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law. James Baldwin

          by evilene689 on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:06:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it is very hard to recover (0+ / 0-)

            once people pigeonhole you.

            This didn't help:

            But I'm not the one that needs to bring
            people around to keep them from voting down my rights.

            See how that works?

            No, actually, you don't see how that works.
            And that is embarrassing because, as a black person, you are supposed to have seen how that all worked in the '60s.

            Black people did not get anywhere by bringing anybody around.  In the states where the most black people live, most white people voted against Barack Obama,
            even though he was half-white and as ANTI-gangsta and PRO-"white"-values as any black person could be.
            If acing Harvard Law won't appease them then they're just not appeasable.  They did NOT come around.
            They are NEVER coming around.  The best we can hope is that they die OF OLD AGE and more of THEIR KIDS just HAPPEN to GET it.

            I am trying to recruit some defense just so your viewpoint can actually be debated instead of wrongly
            and reflexively TRed.
            But you have no  business advising your brother on how to act in order to bring people around to keep then from voting down his rights.  That is surely a case where you 1) need to listen more than you talk, and 2) draw a better history lesson from what has worked in the past.   One thing that obviously makes the struggles different is that 95% of all black people never had to worry about whether to be closeted vs. out as black.  To the extent that invisibility is an option, visibility has a cost. Another difficulty in recruiting allies is that a white person championing the black cause, while she could be vilified as a nigger-lover, could NOT be vilified as an actual nigger.  Straight allies of gay people are not so immune, so the cost of allying is also higher.

            You need a clearer understanding than you have of JUST WHY people AREN'T ALREADY around.  They say Leviticus, but they don't take its OTHER "abominations" equally seriously.  You also need
            to remember that versus anybody's human rights, the majority's bigotry is just constitutionally irrelevant.  It didn't exactly "bring" the good white townfolk of Little Rock AR "around" in 1957 when Eisenhower had the National Guard POINTING GUNS AT THEM.  But it DID get 9 black students into Central High.  Basic human rights ARE NEVER about
            "bringing" anybody "around".  You are NOT supposed to NEED this EXPLAINED to you!

            The road to hell has not YET been paved with Republicans, but it SHOULD be -- Corrected BumperSticker

            by ge0rge on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:22:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for the reply ge0rge (0+ / 0-)

              I don't think it is going to make a difference to the Gays that JUST HAVE TO BE RIGHT, but I see what you mean.

              Ironically, the reasons you stated make it very clear that being an ethnic minority is NOT the same as being GLBTQ and you'd think people would have figured that out by now. The insistence that being black or any other ethnic minority means YOU HAVE TO KNOW BETTER is as hollow as it ever was and people that refuse to deal with that will reap the whirlwind of their windy denials of such facts.

              Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law. James Baldwin

              by evilene689 on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 02:08:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The issue is not whether clueless churchies know (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                evilene689

                better.  The issue is whether you know better.

                The insistence that being black or any other ethnic minority means YOU HAVE TO KNOW BETTER is as hollow as it ever was

                WTF do you mean, as it ever WAS?!?!?
                In the PAST, IT WAS NEVER hollow!  In the past, the CBC and black elected officials generally were THE MOST SOLIDLY RELIABLE bloc of support for gay rights generally, moreso even than gay legislators, far too many of whom were closeted or Republicans!

                This didn't begin to crack until Lawrence v. Texas, until gay people basically got liberated while black ones still haven't been.  Seriously, when people tell you that black people can get married and gay ones can't, ask them what percentage of black children are born out of wedlock as opposed to in.  Economic or other cultural factors preventing black couples from getting married are just as powerful, effective, relevant, and arguably damaging AS LEGAL barriers would be.

                The road to hell has not YET been paved with Republicans, but it SHOULD be -- Corrected BumperSticker

                by ge0rge on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 02:28:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm talking about the issue (0+ / 0-)

                  of racial prejudice = orientation bigotry.

                  That's what I'm saying is hollow, because of the fact that they aren't exactly the same and many ethnic minorities do not make the connection of sexual orientation prejudice of having anything to do with what they experience. People can't (as they did after the passing of Prop 8) just scream about "They should Know Better!". If that was true, you wouldn't have GLBTQ racists.

                  As for the rest of what you wrote, I agree.

                  Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law. James Baldwin

                  by evilene689 on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 03:22:51 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "equivalence" is NOT the issue (0+ / 0-)

                    The issue IS mutual support, and coalition partnership.

                    many ethnic minorities do not make the connection of sexual orientation prejudice of having anything to do with what they experience

                    And I'm saying that THIS IS A RECENT DEVELOPMENT.
                    It was NOT EVER thus.  It was true FOR A LONG time that discrimination was discrimination and that anybody black running FOR ANYthing understood that viscerally --internally-- as a GUT feeling --WITHOUT NEEDING it EXPLAINED to him--  and also understood that it was the LEFT (I.E. LGBT AND PRO-LGBT) third of the white vote that he was going to need to court in order to get elected.  THAT IS CLEARLY how Barack Obama carried North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana.
                    The fact that the struggles were not EQUIVALENT was NOT relevant!  When Jesse Jackson FIRST said "rainbow coalition", THE PUN WAS NOT LOST on anyone and IT ALWAYS HAD a lavender stripe.  The first thing that cracked this struggle off from the broader one of underprivileged people generally was AIDS, but as soon as it became clear that black people's denial around the whole subject of the existence of LGBT black people (especially bisexual black men) WAS KILLING A LOT OF BLACK PEOPLE,
                    (especially heterosexual black women), the LEADERSHIP was AGAIN ready to put the coalition back together.  Lawrence v. Texas, the aggressive promotion of faith-based initiatives, and a gospel of prosperity and a lot of conservative money flowing into the black church ALL combined to thwart that.  The struggles NEVER NEEDED to be "equivalent" in order for black people to support other struggles!!  DO YOU REALLY THINK that black people in general are so ignorant or myopic that they are not going to coalition with or endorse any struggle that is less than "equivalent"???
                    WE need THEIR votes just as much as they need ours!

                    The road to hell has not YET been paved with Republicans, but it SHOULD be -- Corrected BumperSticker

                    by ge0rge on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 08:48:37 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Stop lying (0+ / 0-)

        I didn't bother to point out to her that the way my husband shows the purest expression of his love for me is by sticking his thing up my butt, and I love it, because that would have made her head explode.

        No, it wouldn't, but your saying it would is abusive, way beyond the guidelines.  She's not homophobic at all.
        And neither am I.
        She has a gay brother and her sig is quoting a gay black author.  She was against H8 and she is supportive of the struggle generally.
        You and the usual racist gang of suspects are just libeling her, period.

        The road to hell has not YET been paved with Republicans, but it SHOULD be -- Corrected BumperSticker

        by ge0rge on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:27:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks bruh1 (12+ / 0-)

    My favorite bigotry comes from the ones who threaten to withhold their support of LGBT issues if you don't play according to their rules.

    "If you don't stop whining about Warren I'm going to be forced to stop supporting you people."

    "With that kind of over-the-top drama you're just alienating everyone who would otherwise vote for your issues."

    They are so smug and secure in their heteronormative privilege.  

    They are the people to whom MLK wrote his Letter from the Birmingham Jail.

    You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

    by abrauer on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:20:39 PM PST

  •  And Check This Out..... (5+ / 0-)

    this woman from www.firegoglake.com nails it on Rev. Warren.

  •  I dunno (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dlohse

    Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

    Let me preface by saying that I favor full equality for GBLTQI people, including gay marriage, and have "put my money where my mouth is" by supporting activism for the same within my place of a employment. I also wish Barack would've left Rick Warren off the bill at the Inauguration.

    But, I don't think any of your cited examples demonstrated "bigotry" assuming you accept the above-cited definition of the word, which was the same at all of the dictionaries I consulted, and in the interest of the furtherance of our "reality-based community" here at DKos, I feel compelled to show why.

    In (A) you argue that being factually incorrect makes you a bigot. Even assuming that were true, the example you cite is not factually incorrect. Do you have no recollection of Gavin Newsome marrying gays and lesbians on the steps of San Francisco City Hall in 2004? By pure logic it stands to reason that if the status quo ante was no gay marriage, then it was not the anti-gay marriage crowd that started this as a political issue, unless you want to go back hundreds of years to the origin of the ban. Similarly, while there is certainly considerable socioeconomic diversity with the GBLTQI community, there is also the reality that gays and lesbians do have higher incomes and educational attainment on average, and it is true almost without exception that when gays decide to move to a neighborhood, the quality of life/property values/aesthetics/safety/etc. of that neighborhood improves. I've lived in and around a number of different gay-friendly neighborhoods in different parts of the country, and I can't name you an exception to that rule, although I know there must be one.

    You next argue that the "false choice" argument (gay marriage/other aspects of the progressive agenda) is a form of bigotry. I would submit that by its very nature, this argument negates itself because a "false choice" would be between two good things with the only question being whether they can both be achieved at the same time. Given that one of those good things is gay marriage, the espouser of the false choice argument cannot be a bigot against gay marriage. A bigot clearly does not believe that gay marriage is a good thing.

    In C, you argue that it is bigotry for someone in an argument to fail to listen to what the other person is saying, and only focus on what they think they are saying. I'd say that person is just stupid and/or intellectually sloppy and would probably do the same thing whether they topic was gays or the existence of Martians.

    In D, it's supposedly bigoted to cite a gay person in support of an argument that has to do with gay rights. Yes, we all know that any one single gay individual does not speak for all gays, but a gay person certainly has more authority to opine as to whether or not something is homophobic or bigoted against gays than a straight person. I don't agree with everything Al Sharpton says about blacks, but I certainly wouldn't call someone a racist if they introduced his opinion into an argument about civil rights for blacks.

    Finally, E, you say that if someone points out that even though Obama invited Rick Warren to his Inauguration, Obama has also stood for gay rights in other contexts, then that this person is a bigot. They're not. If someone cites Obama's gay rights stands positively, then that person is not a bigot against gay rights.

    So where's the bigotry in any of this?

    •  bigotry is not just a guy in a white sheet (7+ / 0-)

      yelling nigger while burining a cross on your lawn. It takes many forms.

      •  Yeah, but bigotry is also not (0+ / 0-)

        defined as everyone who happens to disagree with you politically.

        •  we aren't talking about the difference (7+ / 0-)

          between one is for or against tax cuts and we aren't talking just opinion, but also ignorance of easily obtainable facts that no one bothers to find because they feel they do not have to because its about something that affects a minority.

          •  Yeah but the case you cited (0+ / 0-)

            it was you who had the facts wrong. GLBQTI do have higher incomes than the norm, they do bring up the value/quality of neighborhoods, and the gay marriage issue was in large part instigated by the gay rights movement (and they were totally justified in doing so, just to be clear). So does that make you a bigot?

            •  It was a factually inaccurate statement (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musing85, ganymeade, EdSF, eamonsean, abrauer

              Source does not matter. It was something he used to generally reinforce his views on all gays. He could easily google the subject. He certainly cared about it enough to diary it at mydd. So, the least one can expect is accuracy from a progressive or diarist.

              Its the equivalent of saying "all blacks like fried chicken and watermelon." If some blacks say that, this does not make it any less a bigotted a statemnet for you to repeat that as a reason for why blacks should not obtain the same kind of healthcare as others.  And yes, as a black guy, back in the 80s, I heard that.

              I don't understand your question at the end. Since you say "you", do you mean to inply I have argued all gays are as the poster and some other gays describe. I would never argue that. I am a black guy who is gay living in a working class black neighborhood. That would never be my frame of reference that all gays are the same as all other gays.

              •  It was not a factually inaccurate statement (0+ / 0-)

                If someone says that black people generally like "fried chicken and watermelon" it does not mean that ALL blacks like fried chicken and watermelon. It would be wrong if it were hard to find a black person who likes fried chicken and watermelon, but it's not. Go to any black family reunion, and 99% chance that you will find fried chicken and watermelon on the menu.

                Because you are a gay black guy living in a working class black neighborhood does not mean that gays do not have high incomes, on average or that gays do not bring up the value/quality of neighborhoods where they predominate. It just means that at least one gay person lives in a working class neighborhood.

                Finally, any citation to MyDD means almost nothing relative to "progressives" in general. MyDD has barely any traffic whatsoever, and the traffic that is there is mostly made up of reactionary elements ("yellow dog Democrats") who are probably still trying to get over the fact that Hillary didn't win in the primaries, and that Barack Obama actually did win in the general, as all of them starting with Jerome predicted that he would not be able to do.

            •  Actually, Justice Scalia, no. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musing85, craigkg, EdSF, abrauer

              These are Justice Scalia's points in a case against gay rights.

              OUT gays have higher incomes than the norm, because being out is often a function of financial and occupational independence.

              When these more affluent guys get together in a neighborhood, they raise the quality of life and value of that neighborhood, often on the backs of poor gay service workers who do not live in that neighborhood.  

              And the major gay rights organizations were not pushing for marriage equality until it was foisted on the movement by the religious right.  Just ask Andrew Sullivan about his experience in trying to get the movement orgs to push for marriage instead of ENDA and hate crimes legislation.

              You have your 'facts' wrong.

              People know what they do; they frequently know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what what they do does. -Michel Foucault

              by eamonsean on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:16:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If Scalia cited the same set of facts (0+ / 0-)

                I would have a different opinion than him, but I would suspect that the quality of fact-finding in a Supreme Court opinion, regardless of where it falls on the ideological spectrum, is quite a bit higher than in a DKos diary, so I would consider that an affirmation of my case.

                You state that it is only out gays who have higher incomes. I suppose that could be true, but how could you prove otherwise? If people do not self-identify as gay, none of the statistics about them would be applied to gays.

                As far as neighborhood improvement, well I appreciate that poor gay service workers may be exploited in the process it doesn't change the fact that when a neighborhood becomes perceived as gay-friendly, things improve. That was the original point that the diarist is claiming is false. Again, living in and around gay-friendly neighborhood most of my life, I have yet to see an example to the contrary, i.e. where the presence of gays brought down the quality/value of a neighborhood.

                The gay marriage issue is self-evident. If nobody had done anything it would be illegal. It took activism to even make it a possibility.

                •  No. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  musing85, craigkg, EdSF, abrauer

                  Check the citations for Scalia's use of anti-gay talking points, which you wield here.  Harris Interactive marketing poll is used to make the claim that gays are a privileged class.  

                  I did not state that it is only out gays who have higher incomes.  Pay attention to what was actually said:  out gays have higher incomes than the norm, because being out is often a function of financial and occupational independence.  That's very different.

                  You can read the work of Lee Badgett to find out just how off the mark you really are.

                  And on gay marriages happening: some gay couples brought lawsuits.  It wasn't activism.  Activism arrived afterwards.  That story, too, is well known to people who know the history of the movement and the various timelines when it comes to action on the part of regular gay people, religious right activists, and the gay and lesbian movement and its organizations.

                  It isn't at all self-evident.  What is: you talking out your ass.

                  People know what they do; they frequently know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what what they do does. -Michel Foucault

                  by eamonsean on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 06:24:17 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Kind of hard to check citations (0+ / 0-)

                    when you don't cite the case.

                    Bringing lawsuits is not a form of activism? Wow, I did not know that.

                    OK, I guess I'm a bigot because I have questions about the factual accuracy of the claims made in the diary, and or even whether or not the allegations stated even constitute bigotry. I'll just go sulk in a corner and contemplate my homophobic ways.

                    •  there are not that many cases (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      musing85, EdSF

                      involving gay rights. and you ignored the key elemnet in which he links to information that refutes what scalia said. And the end of your post is just you now trying to flip the conversation away from what is being said to you, but doing what bigots do  pretending its the minority's fault for pointing out how you are wrong. Now maybe you are aren't a bigot, but you sure as hell are acting like your shit don't smell in this diary.

                      •  I checked the link that "refutes" (0+ / 0-)

                        Scalia, and it's a link to a book that I would have to buy on Amazon to determine the veracity of the claims made within it. What I do not have is a link to the claims made by Scalia that need to be refuted.

                        •  Dense. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          musing85, EdSF

                          Here's what a google of "gay," "wealthy," and "Scalia" brings up:

                          http://www.exgaywatch.com/...

                          http://www.thetaskforce.org/...

                          http://www.thetaskforce.org/...

                          The Romer v Evans case:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...

                          You are absolutely trading in falsehoods which are wielded by people arguing against equal rights for gay citizens.  

                          And, yes, bringing lawsuits can be a form of activism--when they are brought by social movement organizations or backed by social movement organizations.  Private lawsuits, however, are another matter.  

                          Sorry to ask you to read.

                          People know what they do; they frequently know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what what they do does. -Michel Foucault

                          by eamonsean on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:05:46 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Thank you, but like I said (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            musing85, EdSF, eamonsean

                            if the poster was intersted in knowing the truth he cold have looked it up. THe fact they choose not to know the truth but instead trade in the lie says more than anything else they write here

                          •  Agreed, and... (0+ / 0-)

                            ....here's a shorter version for people that don't like to read:  http://www.outsmartmagazine.com/...

                            People know what they do; they frequently know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what what they do does. -Michel Foucault

                            by eamonsean on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:20:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I really think this issue of income (0+ / 0-)

                            should be diaried. I wonder how many people realize this?

                            'Gay Men Earn less than Straight Men for the Same job"

                            The reality is that a lot of people are trading on ignorance and this to me is again a form of bigotry. Those numbers as much as 25 percent lower is stunning.

                          •  I just saw this, too....Obama.... (0+ / 0-)

                            was for gay marriage a few years ago....

                            http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/...

                            So he took a step back....

                            People know what they do; they frequently know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what what they do does. -Michel Foucault

                            by eamonsean on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:48:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, but that's actually a good thing for us (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            EdSF

                            I keep saying Obmaa is a politician, a good one that's actually on our side over all, but a politician. All this means to me is that gays need to keep up the pressure to get what we want rather than thinking these are entrenched beliefs. As this demonstrates- clearly they aren't and can be changed for political expediency.

                          •  You may also be able to pull data (0+ / 0-)

                            from the Gay and Lesbian Census data.

                            It's a bit biased in its questions (it pretty much assumes as facts the things that Scalia was pointing to in Romer, asking all kinds of stereotypical questions about upscale this and resort that. But as I recall, they did get some good numbers showing the actual purchasing power of a fairly reasonable sample of the GLBT population of the U.S.

                          •  Thanks for the citation (0+ / 0-)

                            Here's what Scalia said:

                            The problem (a problem, that is, for those who wish to retain social disapprobation of homosexuality) is that, because those who engage in homosexual conduct tend to reside in disproportionate numbers in certain communities, see Record, Exh. MMM, have high disposable income, see ibid.; App. 254 (affidavit of Prof. James Hunter), and of course care about homosexual-rights issues much more ardently than the public at large, they possess political power much greater than their numbers, both locally and statewide.

                            Again, without the link to the original source, it's hard to evaluate it, but it's even really the same issue. Scalia cites "disposable income." The citation in the original diary talks about income higher than the norm. Presumably this has to do with GLBTQI having (on average) smaller families.

                            In any event, reading through the literature cited, it seems that there is a "myth" of high gay disposable income perpetuated originally in the context of gay-targeted marketing campaigns. Are gays touting the potential benefits of the gay market bigots?

                          •  you continue not to disappoint (0+ / 0-)

                            you are basically a bigot looking to rationalize your behabior. Look keep your money and vote if we are required to put up with your issues.

                          •  Oh, and because you won't get it (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            EdSF

                            let me explain- you are making a point of attribution. One of the chief techniques of bigots. Some gays do "x" thus everything that results to all gays is justified. SOme gays say gays are wealthy. I am therefore not required to realize that some gays are no wealthy. All gays are fault for not making it clear to me that a patently absurd belief is in fact absurd. Like I said when we started- "all AAs eat watermelon" If someone AA said that to you, it does not then justify your own ignorance just because they are ignorant.

                          •  No you don't get it (0+ / 0-)

                            You accuse me of being a bigot because I said that isn't it true that gays do have (on average) a relatively high disposable income. If, based on that fact, I were to include that because of that there's no need for gays to be protected from discrimination, then yes, I could be called a bigot. But I did not say that. I believe that gays should be protected from discrimination. So, my point is that if you believe that simply saying that gays have (on average) a relatively high disposable income, then people who tout that fact in order to encourage corporations to market to gays must also be considered bigots.

                            Because gays on average may have high disposable incomes does not mean that some gays are also not wealthy. We went through this with AA's. AA's generally like fried chicken and watermelon. Go to any black family reunion picnic, and there is a very good chance that there will be fried chicken and watermelon there (by the way, this AA loves fried chicken and watermelon!) This does not mean that all AA's like fried chicken and watermelon. In fact, I've noticed a disturbing trend where increasingly more AA's claim that they do not like watermelon (I think they're full of sh*t and watermelon's one of the healthiest foods on the planet, but whatever). There may come a day when most blacks do not like watermelon; fortunately (IMHO) that day is not yet here, as far as I know.

                            So . . . if someone says that blacks in general tend to like fried chicken and watermelon, they are not a racist. Even if they were wrong, they would still not necessarily be a racist; it's just a statement of fact, true or not. A white person could believe that blacks love fried chicken and watermelon, and yet not be a racist, and/or a person could believe that blacks hate fried chicken and watermelon and they could be a racist.

                            Similarly, if someone believes that gays have (on average) a lot of disposable income, they're just restating what has been put out there by pro-gay marketing people. It does not mean that they are anti-gay. If they believe that gays should not be protected from discrimination because they have lots of disposable income, then yes, they are a bigot. Big difference.

                •  it would be inaccurate assume (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  musing85, abrauer

                  scalia is using a higher level of fact checking. He has an agenda. Apparently it seems so do you. That agenda is not overly worried about fact so much as using any evidence he can to dismiss the claims. This is the same guy who believes homosexuality should stll be criminilized under state rights doctrine

        •  No Shit Sherlock (5+ / 0-)

          Rev. Warren is not a bigot because he opposes gay marriage - Rev. Warren is a bigot because he compares gays and lesbians to incest and pedophilia.  And that is why we are incensed over Obama jumping into bed with this guy.

          The whole bruhaha has nothing to do with policy or politics.  Obama would be crazy if he DIDN'T work with Warren on issues they agree on, like global warming, AFTER the inauguration.  But it is a slap in the face to the 6.5 million GLBT voters across this country who voted for him - 10% of his total nationwide, to promote a bigot.  Lets see him make up 6.5 million votes with fundamentalist Christians in 2012.

          Obama and so many on this site just don't understand why we are so upset - and that is what is so depressing.  If we fail with Obama and so many on this site, how do we ever get the public as a whole on out side?
           

      •  bruh1, I am sorry but I am going to leave if you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DMiller

        insist on using the "n" word. Sorry, but that is my line in the sand. Peace out.

        •  that's fine (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, ganymeade

          I don't understand it since I am not using the word other than as to how people see racism. The word is racist, and i use it in a racist context as an example of how people view racism. How that means I am using the word is beyond me. But if you feel that it offends you, it's your right to say that. I am just not sure how then one can ever have  conversation about racism and racial terms.

    •  You're overlooking (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, ganymeade, craigkg, EdSF, eamonsean

      that bruh1 is addressing self-identified progressives here, who would not raise these kinds of objections if we were talking about the civil rights of any other suspect class of American citizens.

      You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

      by abrauer on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 11:02:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musing85, craigkg, EdSF, abrauer

        No one computes the average income of racial minority groups by using the subscribers to glossy magazines like Ebony, but can easily walk around saying gays make more money than the norm because the average income of a gay glossy or market research directed at wealthy gays says so...

        That these ideas are so readily accepted and deployed against gays...  By so-called progressives....  Boggles the mind.

        People know what they do; they frequently know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what what they do does. -Michel Foucault

        by eamonsean on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:19:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But the commenter (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, bruh1, craigkg, EdSF, eamonsean

          is a "pragmatic progressive."  You know what that means, don't you?  It means "I believe the framing that America is a center-right nation and will throw you under the bus to achieve the timid objectives I think I can beg America to adopt.  It's not my fault that America isn't ready for you to be equal!"

          You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

          by abrauer on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:33:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  This makes me unhappy: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    musing85, abrauer

    ....its because those who were leading the charge were working for social change with no real or tangible benefit to the vast majority of American citizens.

    Just as injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, the denial of equal rights to a group of people is a threat to the rights of all people.  To stand up against such oppression is therefore to take vital action on behalf of all people, and that is the greatest benefit to the vast majority of American citizens.

    Never forget that with the passage of Prop. h8 we saw the revocation of rights.  I never thought I would witness something like that take place in 21st Century America, and the fact that it did happen quite frankly frightens me.

    As Niemöller (or possibly somebody else) wrote, "When they came for the Catholics, I said nothing, because I was not a Catholic.  When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, because I was not a Jew.  When they came for the union members, I said nothing, because I was not a union member.  When they came for me, no one said anything because they all had already been taken."  We must not allow those among us to be taken.  We will be next.

  •  I know a lot of gay people who are working for (0+ / 0-)

    economic justice, not gay rights (and by "working for" I mean full time).  Do you think there's something wrong with that?

    "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

    by Futuristic Dreamer on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 11:06:34 PM PST

    •  Correction "that" = "their priorities" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ganymeade

      It should read: Do you think there's something wrong with their priorities?

      "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

      by Futuristic Dreamer on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 11:10:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If they argue that somehow (6+ / 0-)

        that means that gay rights are to be ignored, and that those who prioritize gay rights must STFU, then yes. Because it goes beyond prioritization.

        I have friends into all sorts of things in terms of their priorities. The priority is not the problem. The problem is how they then see gay issues in relationship to those priorities. If they say, "okay not my thing,but go for it." Then there is no debate.

        If they say, "Okay gay rights- okay you have the wrong priorites. Shut the fuck up and focus on what's important.' Then there is an issue. It's not simply that they have priorities but that they have issues with the gay issues.

  •  My girlfriend supports gay marriage, (0+ / 0-)

    but is vehemently against gay adoption.

    I disagree with her about adoption, but I can respect this viewpoint, and she is definitely a "progressive."

    •  She's a bigot- a soft form (7+ / 0-)

      but still one. This is like a friend of mine back in the 80s who was okay with AAs in everyway except for interracial marriage.  I know you don't wnat to hear that. but I don't really do lying. The fact that she would say that says she does not care what the facts are. It's an emotional response about gays getting too close to children. It is not backed up by anything in actual studies on the subject.

      •  You may be right. (0+ / 0-)

        I just can't (don't want) to believe that.

        I'm just guessing it comes from her having a traditional happy nuclear family.

        •  Well since I am crap at relationships (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, abrauer

          i m not the best person to talk to about this. Just saying what is motivating the thought processes because the adoption thing is clearly a right wing frame (a la Arkansas as I remember) to push emotional buttons about gays being pedophilles. I dont knwo her. I doubt she even thinks this way. But its there underneath lurking because the gay people I know who are parents are just like any other parents. some good. some great, some kind of crappy.

        •  When gay couples do adopt (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, craigkg

          like any prospective adoptive couple, they are put through extensive screening to confirm their suitability as parents.

          And they not only welcome a child in their lives, they hunger for a child in their lives.

          Thus, a typical adopted child is more likely to be wanted, cherished, nurtured and given a safe and sane environment in which to grow than the average child naturally born to its parent.

          She may not be a bigot, but she is certainly ignorant.  Whether she modifies her position based on the intake of factual information will tell you whether she's a bigot or not.

          You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

          by abrauer on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 06:47:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Can you respect it? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, LeftofArizona, craigkg, Pender

      Or do you fear losing access to your girlfriend's naughty bits over it?

      My husband and I are named in my brother and sister-in-law's will as the family they have chosen to raise their children if something happens to them.  And they have other siblings from whom to choose.

      Does she believe she knows better than they do what's best for their children?

      You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

      by abrauer on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 11:32:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow. (0+ / 0-)

        That's probably the best statement of trust and love a brother can get.

        Honestly, if more stories of things like this came out, I'm sure public opinion would change a lot quicker.

        No, I'm not worried about losing access to naughty bits.  I guess I basically trade her my support of Israel for her stance on gay adoption.

    •  The Very People Who Are.... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      craigkg, eamonsean, abrauer

      against gays adopting are the same people who fail to rise to the occassion and adopt themselves.  It's the "I forbid you to do it and don't expect me to do it" attitude.

      And hundreds of thousands of children are stuck in the system with no hope of a future.

      It's disgraceful.  

    •  You can respect that? What if (0+ / 0-)

      she were vehemently against "black adoption"?

      Still just a minor political disagreement?

      Your girlfriend is a bigot and an asshole.

  •  I can't reconcile this statement (0+ / 0-)

    There are rich, middle-class and POOR gays. There are black, white, Asian and Latino gays. There are gays who are Christian and those who are not.

    with the violent condemnation of blacks after proposition 8 and the pent up fury displayed here and elsewhere by supposedly gay liberals. Either trolls are using race to drive a wedge among progressives over the gay issue or we have some prominent and vocal members of the gay community whose provocative and divisive positions and views on this issue can only indicate that they are white, upper middle class and male and racist to boot. Here is what one (presumably)gay activist  said in response to a long and excellent piece at Huffpo by Clarence B Jones in commemoration of Dr MLK's birthday.

    Since Clarence B. Jones had to include Rick Warren in his essay. I feel I have the right to ask Jones a question. In California, at one time only white people could be realtors. An African-American could get a real estate license and actually practice real estate, but he or she had to be called a realtist, not a realtor. To quote Jones, that was "the political reality." To appease white folks, should we continue to call African-Americans realtists?
    I might also add that in 1964, California passed a constitutional amendment banning all forms of fair housing laws. It passed with a 2/3 majority. Should we have accepted housing discrimination simply because the majority of Californians "seemed to approve" of it?
    If African-Americans refused to accept "seperate but equal", why should gays?

    Now I have no beef with the substance and argument in the comment. I also don't think Clarence Jones handled the Warren reference well. But the chutz pa and gotcha nature and tone of the comment worries me more. It is pregnant with pent-up condescension, anger (and dare I say hatred?) and clearly the commenter is not a black gay as s/he makes a clear distinction between gays and AAs by saying that "If African Americans refused to accept separate but equal why should gays?" S/he clearly does not regard Dr King's struggle as her/his own and the comment implies that the struggle of the AAs and Gays are separate and distinguishable and contains different demographic groups. This is the kind of comment that makes one wonder whether gays are well off white dudes who want to hold Civil rights successes of the past to ransom to achieve their struggle. Personally I am not prepared to lose friends over a crucial civil rights issue like gay marriage on the wrong side of the argument but the hardened anger and creeping hatred that I see from some comments of some people calling themselves gay is sounding very racist to me. And most nauseating is the attempt to suggest that formerly oppressed black people should fall in line or else all blacks and their civil rights struggle are tainted.

    •  But you do. (5+ / 0-)

      Now I have no beef with the substance and argument in the comment.

      You go on to read into the comment all that you imagine it comes with...

      "Pent up fury"?  What evidence is there of this?  Is this an objective assessment, or a characterization?

      People know what they do; they frequently know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what what they do does. -Michel Foucault

      by eamonsean on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:53:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Everyone, white, black, or other, should (5+ / 0-)

      'fall in line' with support of gay rights. Being black does not mean you are 'more' required to support gay rights than a white person, but being black is also not an excuse to not support gay rights. A white who doesn't support gay equality is a bigot. A black who doesn't support gay equality is also a bigot.

      You mustn't take the comments of a few gay people and attribute them to EVERY gay person.

      A couple months ago, there was a diary here by a black man that absolutely infuriated me. The title was something like "Don't you DARE compare gay rights to black rights!", and the whole diary was a hateful rant about how gays needed to 'earn' the black community's support, to 'give something in exchange'.

      Now, there is a right and a wrong way to deal with this anger:

      WRONG: Assume that this particular dipshit was speaking for the entire black community, hop on the "70% Yes on 8, woe is us, the black community is lost!" circular firing squadwagon.

      RIGHT: Understand that people, and the opinions they hold, are to be judged on an individual basis. This was one individual who happened to be a complete moron, not a spokesman for the entire 'black community', just like Sarah Palin is not a spokesman for the entire 'white female community'.

      And most nauseating is the attempt to suggest that formerly oppressed black people should fall in line or else all blacks and their civil rights struggle are tainted.

      Now, I'm white and straight, but when did civil rights become an issue of "Fuck you buddy, I've got mine, if you want me to support you then you'd better start kissing some ass"? Again, blacks who do not support gay equality are bigots, just like whites who do not support gay equality are bigots. No more, no less. No mincing of words, no kid gloves, no excuses.

    •  Meh. They'll just tell you that it was "venting" (0+ / 0-)

      and to ignore it.

      You have to toe the Never Dispute Or Argue With The Gays line around here, or you're a homophobe.

      Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law. James Baldwin

      by evilene689 on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:03:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah okay whatever (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, EdSF

      Look- why don't you randomly bring up the telling me that the  Greenbay Packers are going to win this year or some other unconnected bit of information. The piece you choose to cut and paste is not in dispute,, and you could figure out by googling. You are case and point the bigotry to which I am referring. What's there to dispute about my claim about race and class regarding gays? Nothing. But you cut and paste it anyway- to do what? Make some generalization that is based on comments of some. More than that you lie by saying you have no beef. I don't believe you.

      •  I couldn't stay in the discussion for (0+ / 0-)

        genuine reasons. And thank you for the rejoinder. But I feel you are too angry. We are on the same side!!
        Trully I have no beef with the substance of the comment I cut and pasted. I think among all the things he discussed Clarence B Jones gave the most stupid reason to try and justify the lack of support of the gay rights by a lot of people ( and blacks mostly) I agree entirely with the argument that just because a majority accepts something is NOT a legitimate reason to delay my rights. But I would not have put in such a combative way to fellow fighters. I can put forward strong arguments and win without attacking my opponent. Your comment above for instance is not as nuanced. You are definitley attacking me and that's a weakness on your part.

  •  This is actually a good diary (0+ / 0-)

    But you are avoiding an issue in all of this.

    There seems to be a pervasive attitude here that anything said in disagreement with a GLBTQ person is homophobia. If that's how you and others want it, fine, but don't pretend that it's about fighting homophobia when it appears to be more about shouting down any disagreement.

    You have made good points here, but you know as well as I do that just as in calling out racism, there's a slippery slope to just saying "Do what we say and want and be quiet". I thought that people were complaining about being told to STFU themselves, not that they weren't making everybody else sit down and shut up.

    But I got it: Anything a GLBTQ person says is fine and they are not to be engaged in debate about it.

    Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law. James Baldwin

    by evilene689 on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:27:50 AM PST

    •  Let me see if I can provide some guidelines here (7+ / 0-)

      which are apparently missing.

      I'm simply going to reject that "anything said in disagreement with a GLBTQ person is homophobia".

      The first thing that is missing in the above is context.  Secondarily there are these points:

      First:

      No one person speaks for or on behalf of the "GLBTQ community" on Daily Kos or anywhere else.

      Second:

      That because no one person speaks for or on behalf of the "GLBTQ community on Daily Kos" does not invalidate their individual opinion.

      Third:  

      Disagreement can take many forms and has plenty of possible context.  It might be more incumbent on a person to listen to a GLBTQ person if the topic under discussion IS GLBTQ issues and not some other topic.  That doesn't make the person "right" in and of itself, but it is important not to invalidate a person's life experience for no reason.

      Fourth:

      The probability of a GLBTQ person being right if they disagree with you rises exponentially the number of OTHER GLBTQ posters agree with the original interlocuter.

      This is not unfair, it's a corrolary to a well known rule that works in every situation, in that

      "if one person says something bad about you, you might be able to safely ignore it.  If two people observe the same bad thing about you, it's probably a good idea to pay attention.  If three people say the same bad thing about you, they're almost certainly right and you almost certainly have an issue."

      If you disagree with the entire GLBTQ community or enough of a fraction thereof to make it a serious issue, on GLBTQ issues, then it's a very good idea to examine your own attitudes about it.  We are not so subject to majority (or self-styled majoritarian) thinking that one can evade responsibility for making posts and comments that are hurtful to an entire subsegment of society.

      Some of your post is simply a bad attitude:

      But I got it: Anything a GLBTQ person says is fine and they are not to be engaged in debate about it.

      in that I don't think anyone ever said that to you or anyone else -- it would be an extremely hyperbolic thing for any GLBTQ person to say and they'd never get away with it on Daily Kos or anywhere else.

      At the same time, when non-GLBTQ's try to set standards FOR us "as a whole", that's not really for them to be doing -- and the extreme risk thereof is, yes, in applying homophobic or at least heteronormative reasoning inappropriately.

      The Great Orange Satan's Winged Messenger! (-6.62, -6.26)

      by AndyS In Colorado on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:48:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It should amusing to watch how the troll... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AndyS In Colorado, abrauer

        ...takes to the idea of your "guidelines".  But, it was nice of you to try, nonetheless.

        39 Years Of Yellow-Dogging And Then 1 Year Of WTF

        by Larry Bailey on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:00:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's a lot of reaction and byplay here (7+ / 0-)

          along with attempts to paint a false equivalency between LGBT people and their "detractors".

          I find it a good rule honestly to turn any statement of LGBT's and replace the word with another minority group:  If the statement would be unreasonable to apply to another minority group with the word replaced, then it is almost certainly unreasonable to apply to LGBT people.  It's a good truth and reason test, anyway.

          I also know that saying things to get a reaction out of TEH GAYZ and then claiming that the reaction itself is evidence of an unhealthy reactionism among LGBT people is in vogue right now.

          This same "testing" can't be done with blacks or women or Latinos or others because Daily Kos is built to reject it out of hand -- the community moderation system is designed that way.  Misogynists and outright racists can't really maintain a foothold on Daily Kos because they're recognized right away and banned.  But not as many people recognize heterosexism the same way.

          The Great Orange Satan's Winged Messenger! (-6.62, -6.26)

          by AndyS In Colorado on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:11:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Indeed, there is and you've captured it... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AndyS In Colorado, eamonsean, abrauer

            ...extremely well in your most recent comment.

            In the case of the troll here, the lack of recognition of its bigotry in most threads is understandable, as it has assumed the persona of a tough-talking woman from the hood who knows teh gay up-close via family and therefore speaks from hard, true experience. And it's replete with all the right trappings: screen name, language, etc. If the truth were known, it's probably some Caucasian civil service accountant, immensely enjoying all the attention it gets from its display here.  

            39 Years Of Yellow-Dogging And Then 1 Year Of WTF

            by Larry Bailey on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:22:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Or it might BE hard true experience (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musing85, Larry Bailey, bruh1, EdSF, abrauer

              with a very small number of gay people.  That being the other fallacy .. because one "knows" a tiny number of gay people, observations about them as a whole are true and accurate.  This being done without even trying to get inside the skin of the original person or people and just assuming self-centered whining about them.

              The Great Orange Satan's Winged Messenger! (-6.62, -6.26)

              by AndyS In Colorado on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 05:33:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I love when white people (0+ / 0-)

              decide they know who can be a real person of color or not.

              Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law. James Baldwin

              by evilene689 on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:00:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Okay, I see you addressed (0+ / 0-)

        the issue with how it seems to me. I'm one person with one person's perceptions. I have no problem with what you say.

        That said, I still feel it's like one of I/P debates lately where someone equated being critical of Israel to threatening Jews.

        Can't win when it's "totally for us or completely against us" more often (not always or everyone of course) than not.

        Hatred, which could destroy so much, never failed to destroy the man who hated, and this was an immutable law. James Baldwin

        by evilene689 on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 10:59:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I guess how it seems to you is (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, EdSF, eamonsean, abrauer

          unlike how it seems to some gay people.

          We see ourselves as being attacked and made political scapegoats for things even if we do nothing.  One infamous example would be how the 2004 elections were supposed to be about conservatives electing Bush because they hate the gay.

          The problem being is that we're scapegoated if we do something (or some or one of us does something).

          We're also scapegoated if we do nothing.

          On Daily Kos, it doesn't matter if a gay person brings up a gay issue or if someone else does.  You still get the angry, dismissive holier than thou commentary.

          Sometimes I think if every gay person on Daily Kos instantly vanished, people would still be sniping about "gays" for three weeks before noticing we were even gone.

          So, if we are shit on for doing or saying something, or crapped on for doing or saying nothing, why not push back?

          And I think from seeing what you've written before, you see us "doing something" as opposed to "defending ourselves".  

          But defending onesself and one's people (as people perceive "their people") is just human nature.  Especially when there really IS a point to it all - the point being that we still don't have legal equality in this country.

          The Great Orange Satan's Winged Messenger! (-6.62, -6.26)

          by AndyS In Colorado on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:16:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I believe the idea of replacing (5+ / 0-)

      black for gay does provide an illustration.

      If you can not see why attribution of comments from some gays to the entirety of all gays is a problem because its more than disagreement, then that sums up the problem. How many people along this very thread can't seem to recognize that issue. 'But all gays are " x is what want to argue to me. If I argued all whites are x or all blacks are x based on a conversataion online with a few random posters- the respose would rightly be that I am coming from a bigoted position.

      Another way to look at this is how they choose to respond to the arguments. This is why I included that. It's not merely again disagreement- disagreement requires first listening.

      I have had people point blank make up arguments, and then say, theycan't be bothered to know whether anything they say is factually true or not. That's the kind of arrogance that only comes with being in the majority. Or as, i wrote the arrogance of saying "I am the majority reality and thus the minoirty reality no matter how much you counter with real facts do not matter." There is a difference between arguing a difference of opinion, and wholesale denial of reality. One of the most difficult things that African Americans have had to face is the denial of the very issues that African Americans face. Its a form of invisibility that is well known in the AA community. That's the whole point here. THe language that is often use like "you are whining" is verbatim what one would here in the AA communities back in teh 80, 90 and sometimes today if youg go to the right non-progressive sites.

      Finally, re-read my diary, it's specific enough to explain the difference between disagreement and bigotry. bigotry is by it definition disagreement but its based on the classification rather than the arguments. That happens in different ways. That the class does not suffer what facts say they suffer. That the class's interests do not matter. Etc.

      •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musing85, EdSF, eamonsean

        There's also the erasure of history or the diminution of it by people in the majority.  It's as if "x" didn't happen when in the past when you point out "y" in the present.  So when you try to point out a pattern, it goes nowhere.

        There is for example the pattern observation of Obama first picking Warren and then picking Robinson to somehow make up for it -- as if this just happened once.

        But then there was Obama picking McClurkin and then picking Sidden to "balance the scales" during the campaign, to supposedly "foster a conversation" between GLBT's and anti-GLBT's that never happened.  It was just an excuse then, and the supposed conversation which was supposed to take place is an excuse now in exactly the same way.  

        But, if you bring that up, many people will not remember Obama having Donnie McClurkin represent the Obama campaign at a campaign function, or they will actively misrepresent the incident.

        The Great Orange Satan's Winged Messenger! (-6.62, -6.26)

        by AndyS In Colorado on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 08:45:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Bruh, an issue I would raise, and maybe it's (0+ / 0-)

    off topic, is the way many posters here on I/P diaries don't appear to care, when it is pointed out, that Hamas is hompophobic. And I don't mean just anti-gay mariage, but they would jail homosexuals.  Further that like minded radical islamist groups in Europe have the same outlook and engage in gay bashing.  I don't know if that bothers you and others--I imagine it does.

    •  I don't know anything about Hamas (0+ / 0-)

      I know about iran. but not israel-palestine. I am not the person for that conversation given my lack of knowlege.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site