Prop 8 Revisited
The following letter was forwarded to me through the GLBT Committee that I sit on on Campus. Upon reading it I immediatey felt a sense of shame and disapointment within myself for immediately playing right into the same feelings expressed by Dan Savage. My white privlege is showing once again. I must do better. I commend the students who composed this letter, and am so proud that members of the queer community were not blinded as I was.
From the California Aggie, November 18, 2008
It's not just homophobia that enabled the recent passage of
California's Proposition 8, which eliminates marital rights for same-
sex couples. In fact, as thousands of LGBT people and their allies
protest Prop 8, it is race and racism that come bubbling to the
surface.
Race figured heavily into campaigns both for and against Prop 8. Yes
on 8, primarily funded by white conservative organizations from
outside California (including massive donations from the Mormon
church and Colorado's Focus on the Family), particularly targeted
communities of color. In fact recent news reports reveal that the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints began a steady
grassroots campaign against same-sex marriage in California in 1997.
Ads in multiple languages, featuring people of color opposing same-
sex marriage, worked on the assumption that all people of color are
both straight and inherently homophobic. Gay rights were made to
seem irrelevant and even damaging to these communities, pitting race
against sexuality by linking queerness with whiteness.
But the No on 8 campaign also implied that gay rights are white
rights, with ads consisting primarily of white, middle-class people.
Ads that did include images of people of color - including one that
drew connections to earlier laws prohibiting interracial marriage -
failed to indicate how marital rights might have material benefits
for queer communities struggling against racism, poverty, and anti-
immigrant policies. Richard Kim's recent article in The Nation
reports that No on 8 neglected to campaign strongly in communities
of color or in languages other than English until shortly before the
election.
Nevertheless, some factions of the white gay movement now blame
communities of color - and black voters in particular - for Prop 8's
success. White gay journalist Dan Savage wrote last week that black
homophobia is one of the biggest problems facing LGBT people of all
races, citing exit polls that show 70% of black voters supported
Prop 8. Savage echoed a common white gay sentiment: since LGBT
voters generally supported Obama, black voters should reciprocate by
voting against Prop 8. This stance erases the lives and work of
queer black people, and assumes that black voters owe the No on 8
campaign some loyalty, even though the campaign focused primarily on
white gay lives.
To scapegoat black voters, Savage and others ignore that Prop 8
passed most easily in primarily white counties, and in the same
counties that voted for Bush in 2004. In fact, black voters made up
only 10% of voters statewide. Despite these facts, black queer
people protesting Prop 8 in Los Angeles and elsewhere report
experiencing violence and racial epithets from white people who
blame them for Prop 8's success and for queer oppression more
generally.
While we strongly condemn the homophobia that Prop 8 represents and
institutionalizes, we believe this is an important moment for the
mainstream LGBT movement to reconsider its goals and strategies.
Instead of last-minute attempts to win votes from communities of
color without actually addressing their needs, long-term coalitions
must be built that work against broader forms of oppression. Despite
the basic similarities between bans against interracial and same-sex
marriages, interracial marriage was never a major priority for the
black civil rights movement of the 1960s. Most organizers were more
concerned with police violence, access to education and housing, and
voter rights. What would the current LGBT movement look like if it
instead prioritized struggles against poverty, inadequate healthcare
and police brutality? These goals would necessarily address racism,
classism and state violence in ways that the current marriage
movement does not. For example, the movement ignores how marriage
may be experienced as a form of violence (rather than an act of
love) by communities of color and poor communities coerced into
marriage by U.S. welfare reform and healthcare policies. While
sometimes strategically useful, marriage should not be the primary
way to access these basic resources and protections. The LGBT
movement recently demonstrated the ability to organize on an
enormous level, yet remains focused on a goal that benefits only the
most normative gay family and relationship structures. In the wake
of Prop 8, we hope that queer communities and their allies will
think beyond marriage as the primary gateway to liberation.
Toby Beauchamp
Abigail Boggs
Cynthia Degnan
Benjamin D'Harlingue
Cathy Hannabach
Tristan Josephson
Liz Montegary
Judy Sanchez
Kara Thompson
Mark Yanez
The authors are undergraduate and graduate students at UC Davis,
engaged in queer and trans activist and academic