from Lambda Legal

[rm]

Today, as the ballot counting for Proposition 8 in California continues, Lambda Legal, along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the ACLU, filed a petition in the California Supreme Court on behalf of Equality California and six same-sex couples urging the court to invalidate Prop 8 if it passes. The petition charges that Prop 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group — lesbian and gay Californians. Prop 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. Whatever the outcome of the election or the lawsuit, we and the California Attorney General agree that existing California marriages are valid, and Lambda Legal will work in the courts to protect these marriages if they are attacked.

The news from other states with ballot measures affecting LGBT people was extremely disappointing. Florida's Amendment 2, which excludes same-sex couples from a constitutional definition of marriage, was approved by a vote of 62 to 38 percent — a narrow margin because constitutional amendments require a vote of 60 percent for passage in Florida. In Arizona, Prop 102 also was approved and will amend the state constitution to exclude same-sex couples from marriage. In Arkansas, voters approved a ballot measure that prohibits unmarried individuals or couples from fostering or adopting children effectively excluding gay and lesbian individuals and same-sex couples from the pool of adoptive and foster parents. In one state victory, Connecticut voters defeated a call for a constitutional convention that was promoted by groups eager to eliminate the right to marry for same-sex couples.

Last night's results also brought us hope. The election of Barack Obama as president presents exciting new opportunities to advance equality at the national level. Lambda Legal is committed to working with the new administration and the entire civil rights community to enact an inclusive employment nondiscrimination law, as well as fair and inclusive immigration and hate crime laws; to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the federal Defense of Marriage Act; and to implement better policies for those with HIV. And once these laws and policies take effect, Lambda Legal will have new tools at its disposal to do what we do best: fight in the courts against the discrimination that LGBT people and those with HIV experience all across the nation.

Comments

And More...

[keith418.livejournal.com]

More fun stuff here.

Is anyone interested in having this discussion...

I'll have it.

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

K, is that really news? Two words "Bayard" "Rustin"






(oops spelling)

...

[keith418.livejournal.com]

I was surprised, and happy, to see DiFi spending some political capital attacking this proposition. I was also surprised, and unhappy, at not seeing, say Obama, doing the same.

I don't see too many people in California wanting to have this conversation even though it seems as if the measure would have failed without this support.

Re: ...

[paragraphs.livejournal.com]

Another viewpoint--from a black, lesbian, and STILL married Californian...

http://darkrosetiger.livejournal.com/

Re: ...

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

Come now, Obama used the word "Gay" in his speech last night.

I am unsure how this eventuality escaped anyone. Apparently, in everyone's zeal to "get out the vote" and elect Obama, they forgot to look at exactly how that was going to happen and what it was going to cost. I was just talking to a friend who works for the Democratic party here, and he said that the African American vote was the reason (with the exception of AK) that all the gay bans passed. Am I the only person who thinks that, mayhaps, having all these measures come up now wasn't a giant coinky-dink?

The real issue here is that gays need to get off their ass and start fighting like it was a full time profession.

...

[keith418.livejournal.com]

Let's not forget Latinos too - more here.

I am not surprised that this subject makes people unhappy. But a real investigation into homophobia among other minority groups is certainly going to be as upsetting and disturbing as it is necessary.

Or people can ignore it and pretend the people they want to agree with them agree with them... when they really do not.

Re: ...

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

Of course the subject makes people unhappy. Nobody wants to be guilty of hypocrisy and nobody wants to admit that everyone has a hierarchy of social value. (Hey let's have that talk!)

What kills me, in all the mourning over it, is that nobody has said "Hey, where was that referendum to codify same sex marriage?" "Where was Prop "Civil Unions = Marriage Exactly"? Instead, it's a bunch of blaming other people for being unenlightened jerks. We are blaming the wrong people. The people we need to blame are the gays.

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

I think for the most everyone is thinking legal privileges. Gays haven't really mobilized on this issue, save the most politically active. The problem with being that, like everyone else, our most politically active tend to be the most overreaching, pandering, and strident. Somewhere along the line someone decided that only "Marriage" would be good enough. It's a bad gambit. While most gay people know that, most gay people, at the moment, seem content to let these dinks fly anything up the flagpole they please.

That's going to change. Eventually, nearly everyone gets the joy of being middle aged. When the generations of people who have lived their lives "out" start turning forty, there is going to be a massive shift. It's at that point this stuff will finally stop being so darn cute.

Re: ...

[feyandstrange.livejournal.com]

It's not possible to do a state referendum that will create an equal civil union when there are two dozen Federal marriage rights.

Re: ...

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

You are right. I guess that means that we have no choice but to hope and pray that public opinion sides with the homos. We shouldn't even bother trying to get things codified, in any way, on the State level. After all, what would be the point of that?

Oh how silly I have been. You have shown me the error of my ways. It's back to the clubs for me.

Re: ...

[feyandstrange.livejournal.com]

Apparently I haven't shown you the error of your mathematics. Polling data shows that queers have a better chance of doing this state-by-state than by attacking a Federal law, especially with a conservative SCOTUS.

Uh Hello?

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

I actually am an advocate of attacking things on a state level. I have actually campaigned for various state laws in the past. Further, I have noted that conservative groups are fond of and have effectively used this tactic. You must be thinking I am someone else.

Perhaps I misunderstood your comment but, other than as an apparent non sequiter, it appeared to be an attempt to negate my previous statements by suggesting that since federal law wasn't going to be directly attacked, then there was no purpose in state tactics. I responded with sarcasm. Now you're mentioning my questionable mathematics - giant wtf? there too. So, uh could you kindly be a little more clear about what exactly you are saying? Maybe you could start by rephrasing what you think I am actually saying. I'm guessing you think I am doing something different than what I am.trying to get across.

Re: ...

[nex0s.livejournal.com]

It was WHITE Mormons who put up 77% of the money to support Prop 8 - not blacks, not Latinos.

Get your facts straight. Yes, homophobia is a huge problem in minority communities... and is a huge assed problem in lily white communities as well. And you know what? There's still a fuckload more white people than brown people in this country - that's why brown people are referred to as "minorities" to begin with here.

Blaming brown people is a recipe for failure. (http://darkrosetiger.livejournal.com/396883.html)

N.

Re: ...

[tacky-tramp.livejournal.com]

I agree wholeheartedly. We do need to take demographic realities into account when campaigning, but blaming voters we failed to reach out to is pointless. We shouldn't be pointing a finger at communities of color; we should be developing strategies for connecting with the voters we missed this time.

...

[keith418.livejournal.com]

More on this here.

Liberals hate it when minority groups don't play along. Like I said, it may just be a problem that's easier for people to ignore. Dan Savage has more here.

This has been instructive

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

Notice how you are getting attacked for making privileged arguments but nobody is touching my "Gay people need to get it together" gambit. Why oh why, is it always so much easier to blame the man?

Re: This has been instructive

[lorem_ipsum]

I was just thinking of how to word my objection to your intimation that gay people are oppressed because they're lazy when I happened to scroll down and see this.

Re: This has been instructive

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

That's not my argument at all. I am saying that until the queer community starts being proactive, as opposed to reactive on issues, we will continue to be at the mercy of others. This will continue to happen. No one gives you rights, you have to take them. Letting judges and people who want you dead frame the discussion is no way to win. We have to actually make it happen ourselves.

Having to vote "No' on a proposition, in order to preserve a liberty, is the very essence of reactive. It's marginal behavior. How much different would this discussion be if it had been about voting "Yes"? If we chose to be the ones who set the agenda instead of them? In this life, you have to affirm. You have to actually stand for something. That's not easy but that's exactly what it takes.

Tell me what about that you really disagree with.

You know that Obama is actually against gay marriage, right?

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

You have got to be kidding. Most Gays actually are coasting on changing attitudes toward more freedoms. Did the eighties teach you nothing?

Homosexuals only mobilized after about 1/3 of an entire generation of gay men died. Up until that point, people were busy vitriolically defending their right to the open bath house. Even then, the biggest most effective action was led by rich upper middle class white heterosexuals. It wasn't homosexuals who were making quilts and petitioning Washingtion. It was, for the most part, the striaght familiy memebers of people who had died.

There is a myth that goes "people did not start worrying about AIDS until heterosexuals started dying of it". As if, up until that point, there was this massive organized homosexual movement that was being virtually ignored. That's not really true. What happened when the straight people started getting HIV was that straight people became more politically active. Straight people were far more responsible for raising tolerance awareness, controlling the blood supply, and getting research done than anyone else.

If you think I am full of it, just check out how many ads for bare backing there are on Craig's list. Count the number of bathhouses in your nearest metropolitan area. Look at the WHO's statistics for HIV infection in developed nations. Ask people. Many will tell you it's a "Dead Issue", that we now have pills for that, that they try not to think about it, that it's all minority women, and that you are bringing them down. Most people don't even realize that the drugs don't work for everyone. I, off and on, have spent eighteen years doing volunteer work for HIV education and hospice work. I have say, that my experience, suggests that these attitudes get worse, not better, every year.

When the conversation shifts to something as non life threatening as martial rights, it's even worse. I can't tell you how many people I know who have bought houses together and have chosen to raise children together, who then break up and act like it all never happened. That's not everyone and I am not going to pretend that it is. Still, that's not at all uncommon.

A number of years ago, I went out and worked toward getting a Civil Union bill passed in Texas. We couldn't even raise enough signatures. Later when the defense of marriage bill was coming up, I went out to raise money to fight it. I got maybe three grand from the people in my community. Most of that money came from straight people. Yet, as soon as the bill passed the great wailing and gnashing of teeth commenced. If that's not coasting, then tell me, just what the fuck is that?

Get It... Straight

[keith418.livejournal.com]

It's okay to hold one minority group accountable for giving money to support the homophobic proposition (Mormons), but it is NOT okay to hold other minority groups accountable for voting for the bill. That makes sense. That is logical.

And that isn't patronizing? What exactly does this kind of patronizing effort indicate?

We all really do look alike, ya know.

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

Dude, everyone knows that all Mormons are white. Only homosexuals get to be minorities and white.

Hey! Maybe that's why all the other minorities hate us.

Re: ...

[lorem_ipsum]

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8013

Re: ...

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

Okay. This appears to be a blog from a nice lady who is attempting to navigate the tiresome quagmire of "2nd vs. 3rd wave feminism vs. POC vs. GLBT issues". I suppose you thought the content of this was a self evident response to my comment. It wasn't. Could you please help me out with what you are trying impart here?

I, for one, am grateful she didn't add to that hot mess by also mentioning class.

Re: ...

[lorem_ipsum]

I may have misread your comment to which I was replying, but I thought you were suggesting that not only are African Americans the reason that Prop 8 passed, but that Prop 8 was put on the ballot while an African American ran for president specifically because the homophobes knew Obama would get out the vote. My reply to that, if that is indeed what you were saying, was to point specifically to this:

And now I feel that a giant snowball of blame game is about to roll over and crush me on this front. Who voted for Yes on 8 is clear now, as exit polls show 70% of blacks, (with black women at 74%) voted for the amendment. That's about 20 points higher than any other racial group. But the blame needs to be put into perspective - blacks represent only 6.2% of California's population and they were about 10% of those who voted.

I forgot that the blog post I grabbed that from was not entirely relevant to this discussion.

Don't forget the Latinos!

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

I am mostly saying what you think I am saying. I am saying that all the "marriage " bills (not just Cali), with the exception of the bill in Arkansas, were timed to capitalize on the way POC seem to vote. (We can get much deeper into that if you want.)

Let's just look at California:

Prop8 has tentatively passed by 52%. Okay by your own statistic that means seven of those points came from black people. Obama won the state by 61% to 37%. If we assume that everyone who voted Mccain also voted "yes". You are still talking 15 Obama points also voting "yes". Even under the most generous tabulation that means 6.5 of those points came from Obama blacks. With whites and other POC Obama voters making up the remaining 8.5.

White voters were about 63% of the vote. Since white voters split roughly evenly between Mcain and Obama and on Prop 8. (white women voted "no" more), that actually means ALMOST ALL of the 15 Obama "yes" points were POC. With Latinos and "Other" comprising the remaining 8.5. So yeah, uh, pretty much black and Latino Obama voters passed this.

Here's the breakdown by race:

On Prop 8

Whites - 51% no
African American - 70% yes
Latino - 53% yes
Asain - 51% no
Other - 51% yes

Percentage of voters

White (63%)
African-American (10%)
Latino (18%)
Asian (6%)
Other (3%)

People who voted for Obama

Whites 52%
African-American 94%
Latino 74%
Asian 64%
Other 55%



I am getting my statistics from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1)

Still, I don't think any of that matters as much as gay people actually setting their own agenda. Just say'en.

Re: And More...

[browneyedgirl65.livejournal.com]

I think Pam Spaulding covered it quite well, actually. One thing to remember is that blacks constitute something like 6.2% of the population in california. I'd be looking a lot harder at the OLDER folks, who broke in similar numbers for prop 8 and who constitute a much higher percentage of the state's population. (There are linkies from the main article at my LJ I posted today.)

At this point, I have a notice up on my front door specifically stating that Mormons are NOT welcome (near San Bernardino, we get a fair number of door knockers here) and WHY. I am INFURIATED with the religious groups for this interference in our civil rights. I'm not happy that blacks probably tipped LA County from "no" to "yes" but face it at 6.2% they were not a decisive factor. Mormons gaming the vote were.

The folks organizing the no on 8 really kind of pulled a kerry-edwards on this. They let the yes folks frame the issues and were mostly reactive to everything.

One important point I did see raised (on americablog, I think) was that civil rights *should* be settled in courts, not as popular votes. Black civil rights were never put to the vote -- the Jim Crow laws in the South would *still* be on the fucking books if that were the case. The courts decide and stick it to the rest of us. (Because right now I'd vote to strip certain religious groups of *their* civil rights, so isn't it a good thing that their rights aren't up to a vote at this point?). Anyway. The legal challenges I hope will put a positive and decisive rest to this.

Double Standards

[keith418.livejournal.com]

One important point I did see raised (on americablog, I think) was that civil rights *should* be settled in courts, not as popular votes.

Wow, maybe some all-wise liberal courts should make, you know, ALL our laws - and then we won't have to worry about what the ignorant, racist, and very flawed masses think ever again. To leave it all to the courts is about as anti-democratic as what the neocons want - to leave it all up to a president-dictator. What happened to the idea of a separation or powers? What happened to the idea of organizing to change people's hearts and minds? I guess if you're too busy having fun, you'd rather just let the courts impose your views - rather than work to confront and educate the unwashed masses.

Part of the problem with organizing to change people's minds is that you actually have to confront the origins of homophobia in the communities in question. This might make some people see their own role in sustaining unequal power relations and the kind of class conditions that create "irrational" things like the bitter resentment of rich, educated elites and homophobia. You also cannot effectively organize and interact with people you do not respect.

The same kind of people who resent it when anyone points out problems with their "protected" minority groups are usually the ones who tell us that we can't critique Zionism or what Israel does either. What kind of trend does this reveal?