Well, honestly, my response simply points out her position and the fact that I understand her perspective. And I agree with many of her points. However, to respond...
I think you're ignoring your own call for a focus on interesections of race, class, & sexual orientation when criticizing the political activities of white middle-class lgbt people: political action takes a lot of money and time that lower class people simply don't have to offer.
Well, firstly, if we look at the political actions geared toward, say, immigration reform, the people most active have largely been a) not white and b) not rich. Most of the ground work for the political action during the civil right movement additionally were done by people who were a) not white and b) not rich.
While clearly white and middle-class (or wealthier) people typically have more free time and expendable money to contribute, people of all ethnicities and class backgrounds have managed to contribute to political causes that they felt were critical. Or were persuaded by their cultural institutions were critical.
Assuming there is a limit on the amount of political action one can take, and the money and time that one can contribute to it, Jasmyne (and others) might suggest that people who are poor, black AND gay are quite possibly more concerned with other issues before they consider the issue of gay marriage.
I'm more than a bit concerned that your position--echoed by many academic queers at UCLA--belittles the idea that middle-class white people deserve equal rights, or at best deserve them last. Just because we're financially and socially better off in this flawed system doesn't mean we don't deserve these rights or somehow deserve to get them later.
The way I look at it, white, middle-class gays and lesbians are "ahead" when it comes to our status in society, compared to those of our poorer, non-white brothers and sisters. As such, I feel that a lot of white, middle-class gays and lesbians feel that if we just get marriage rights, we're going to be on equal footing with white, middle-class straight people. Even with marriage rights, working-class black and latino gays and lesbians in the united states are still going to face racism and classism.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that any group get their rights "later"...however, I think it should be obvious that white middle-class gays and lesbians already have more freedoms than non-white, non-middle-class queers.
We can now count 2/3 of black voters amongst the anti-gay bigots.
I wonder how many of those black voters who voted for Prop 8 were gay?
I think that many people have fallen into the trap that the Yes on 8 campaign set. We weren't fighting for a right we didn't already have, we were fighting for to keep a right that was already affirmed. To vote to take away a right is vastly different than voting against giving a right. The fact that one group is "ahead" doesn't excuse the fact that people voted to move a group back. Unless the goal is to move everyone to the lowest common denominator. I would prefer we all move forward.
Firstly, civil rights work in the 1960s found its funding and resources communally in the church. Nowadays, your example of immirgration reform also finds its funding in latino churches, but also in numerous community-supported nonprofit organizations, which do work on behalf of latinos and with little result. There is no equation here with lower class support of lgbt rights. The fight for equal rights for LGBT persons does not benefit from church organizing, and whose volunteers came from the community more than blanket nonprofits.
When not working means no bread on the table, people don't spend lots of time organizing. Again, using your own example of immigration reform, the method has been lobbying and occasional demonstration. A one-day demonstration is very little investment for very little return. This is nothing along the lines of full months of volunteer work spent at phone banks and going door to door. I can say I never had an immigration reform volunteer appear in my neighborhoods, wherever I lived at the time.
While it might be true that someone who is poor, black, and gay has a lot on their social justice "to do" list, there's no reason why a poor, black, lgbt person would vote to disempower themselves, except: internalized homophobia, ignorance, or anti-secularism. Civil rights are not a juggling act. There was no question of "either I eat and find a job or I empower myself with equal marriage rights." These people were already voting, and voting "No" requires nothing more of a gay, black, poor person than a middle-class white gay person.
Your arguments about racism/classism are a moot point, and you've drawn no conclusion. It's obvious non-whites face racism and poor people face classism, but these ills are not enshrined in law.
So what if WMCG already have more freedoms? What's your point here? Because I'm reading an implication that we ought to wait until others have "caught up" before we move on. I'd like my rights now; already having better standing social doesn't justify holding back my equality under the law.
Many of us understand that marriage doesn't create social equality. Social equality was not on the ballot. Dan mentions adoption, military service, but there's also ENDA, hate crimes laws, and many more equal rights and due process issues before we are equal under the law--rights that racial minorities already have.
Also, you can't justify marriage inequality on an opinion/feeling you have about how some gays see the impact of marriage. If you want to live in a post-marriage society, by all means do something about it, but I advise that no one tries outside of academia because it's impractical. In the interim, people do marry and do get something for it, and every person should be able to marry whomever they choose without the arbitrary distinction of gender choosing which unions are recognized and which are not.
I wonder how many of those black voters who voted for Prop 8 were gay? Without figures, this is useless speculation. But, internalized homophobia is self-directed bigotry, so if any black voters were gay and voted yes, then I still count them as bigots. Jasmyne's argument, should it stand for them, is akin to saying, "I need to worry about employment/DWB/etc. before I ever get married, so I'm going to deny myself rights until all that's fixed, even though i'm already voting and can just mark 'No'." It's irrational and self-defeating. So, if they voted against their own orientation, not only do they get to continue to face racism and classism; they get to suffer institutionalized homophobia that they put into place!
While minorities face social problems, they at least have "de facto" equal rights under the law. LGBTs do not. Legally speaking, I have fewer rights than a poor racial minority person, even if I enjoy better "status" because of my class or skin. They still have straight privilege. Two opposite-gendered blacks can serve in the military and get married, regardless of their class. I can't say the same.
Your arguments about racism/classism are a moot point, and you've drawn no conclusion. It's obvious non-whites face racism and poor people face classism, but these ills are not enshrined in law.
I think this statement alone suggests we will not be able to discuss this: it's clear our political orientations are way too far apart.
I think you're ignoring your own call for a focus on interesections of race, class, & sexual orientation when criticizing the political activities of white middle-class lgbt people: political action takes a lot of money and time that lower class people simply don't have to offer.
Well, firstly, if we look at the political actions geared toward, say, immigration reform, the people most active have largely been a) not white and b) not rich. Most of the ground work for the political action during the civil right movement additionally were done by people who were a) not white and b) not rich.
While clearly white and middle-class (or wealthier) people typically have more free time and expendable money to contribute, people of all ethnicities and class backgrounds have managed to contribute to political causes that they felt were critical. Or were persuaded by their cultural institutions were critical.
Assuming there is a limit on the amount of political action one can take, and the money and time that one can contribute to it, Jasmyne (and others) might suggest that people who are poor, black AND gay are quite possibly more concerned with other issues before they consider the issue of gay marriage.
I'm more than a bit concerned that your position--echoed by many academic queers at UCLA--belittles the idea that middle-class white people deserve equal rights, or at best deserve them last. Just because we're financially and socially better off in this flawed system doesn't mean we don't deserve these rights or somehow deserve to get them later.
The way I look at it, white, middle-class gays and lesbians are "ahead" when it comes to our status in society, compared to those of our poorer, non-white brothers and sisters. As such, I feel that a lot of white, middle-class gays and lesbians feel that if we just get marriage rights, we're going to be on equal footing with white, middle-class straight people. Even with marriage rights, working-class black and latino gays and lesbians in the united states are still going to face racism and classism.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that any group get their rights "later"...however, I think it should be obvious that white middle-class gays and lesbians already have more freedoms than non-white, non-middle-class queers.
We can now count 2/3 of black voters amongst the anti-gay bigots.
I wonder how many of those black voters who voted for Prop 8 were gay?
Reply
Reply
When not working means no bread on the table, people don't spend lots of time organizing. Again, using your own example of immigration reform, the method has been lobbying and occasional demonstration. A one-day demonstration is very little investment for very little return. This is nothing along the lines of full months of volunteer work spent at phone banks and going door to door. I can say I never had an immigration reform volunteer appear in my neighborhoods, wherever I lived at the time.
While it might be true that someone who is poor, black, and gay has a lot on their social justice "to do" list, there's no reason why a poor, black, lgbt person would vote to disempower themselves, except: internalized homophobia, ignorance, or anti-secularism. Civil rights are not a juggling act. There was no question of "either I eat and find a job or I empower myself with equal marriage rights." These people were already voting, and voting "No" requires nothing more of a gay, black, poor person than a middle-class white gay person.
Your arguments about racism/classism are a moot point, and you've drawn no conclusion. It's obvious non-whites face racism and poor people face classism, but these ills are not enshrined in law.
So what if WMCG already have more freedoms? What's your point here? Because I'm reading an implication that we ought to wait until others have "caught up" before we move on. I'd like my rights now; already having better standing social doesn't justify holding back my equality under the law.
Many of us understand that marriage doesn't create social equality. Social equality was not on the ballot. Dan mentions adoption, military service, but there's also ENDA, hate crimes laws, and many more equal rights and due process issues before we are equal under the law--rights that racial minorities already have.
Also, you can't justify marriage inequality on an opinion/feeling you have about how some gays see the impact of marriage. If you want to live in a post-marriage society, by all means do something about it, but I advise that no one tries outside of academia because it's impractical. In the interim, people do marry and do get something for it, and every person should be able to marry whomever they choose without the arbitrary distinction of gender choosing which unions are recognized and which are not.
I wonder how many of those black voters who voted for Prop 8 were gay?
Without figures, this is useless speculation. But, internalized homophobia is self-directed bigotry, so if any black voters were gay and voted yes, then I still count them as bigots. Jasmyne's argument, should it stand for them, is akin to saying, "I need to worry about employment/DWB/etc. before I ever get married, so I'm going to deny myself rights until all that's fixed, even though i'm already voting and can just mark 'No'." It's irrational and self-defeating. So, if they voted against their own orientation, not only do they get to continue to face racism and classism; they get to suffer institutionalized homophobia that they put into place!
While minorities face social problems, they at least have "de facto" equal rights under the law. LGBTs do not. Legally speaking, I have fewer rights than a poor racial minority person, even if I enjoy better "status" because of my class or skin. They still have straight privilege. Two opposite-gendered blacks can serve in the military and get married, regardless of their class. I can't say the same.
Reply
I think this statement alone suggests we will not be able to discuss this: it's clear our political orientations are way too far apart.
Reply
Leave a comment