Capitol Hill Blue Forums We shall overcome

You may get an idea of our outrage from what happened about El coyote, a long time gay friendly restaurant. In fact, we are largely responsible for their success. One of the owners was found to have contributed to Yes on 8.

El Coyote tries to explain

What is at stake for me, as a citizen, is the diminishment of the rights of all citizens to the protection of the state and the preservation of the principles of the Constitution itself. Gays happen to be the oppressed minority du jour, but it could as easily be you or any of us. Like to own a gun? You should have voted against Prop 8. Think your religious freedom is important? Should have voted against it. Like free speech? Get over it, this is the camel's nose under the tent. People seem to miss the bigger picture here - this isn't about "gay" rights, this is about all Americans' rights to live in a country governed not by the whims of the populace or the wording of a legal provision, but fundamental constitutional protections and rational legislation. If this proposition stands, it is the start (strike that, we already have the start in DoMA, and 39 States that have anti-gay legislation in place) of a significant diminishment of the entire Constitution itself. Like the Bill of Rights? Well, just remember how they used to be respected, revered, and followed.

I believe there probably is a generational divide. In one of my posts I mentioned the older guy I met on election night who said he thought the whole thing was 'silly'.

But the more I think about the race part of the equation, the less I believe that anything could have been done to change that.

There are gays in every single community out there - we are not defined by race. It is amazing to me that, a large percentage of the population, perceive that gays are only white males. That should come as a surprise to the black, latino, middle eastern, asian men I have slept with over the decades.

Why weren't they heading up the push within their own communities?

I'll tell you why. Because many of these men were not out to their families, they knew they would be rejected. They sensed that most of their parents knew but, if you don't talk about it, it doesn't exist. Putting something gay oriented on a ballot is not going to yield a positive result in these communities. I would bet that in a lot of cases, particularly if there was a gay child in the family, those parents would be the first to vote against gay marriage - if the option does not exist, their child may end up marrying someone of the opposite sex. Take that right away then being gay is no longer an option. (and no, that doesn't make sense but it does seem to be the thought process for parents in denial).

For the record, I know self-hating gay white males who voted "Yes" as well (see: Jerry, the guy I met election night).

I resent some members of the gay community blaming other minorities, but I really resent being told that the gay white males needed to reach out. For some of these families, if their own children could not persuade a "no" vote, then some gay white guy ain't gonna do it.

Thank you NW! I really do not see how this is not blatantly obvious to everyone. Perhaps that is why it has hit me so hard. Hell, I don't even have a boyfriend!

Phil, this is the second story like this I have read today. The first was this one http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/12/state/n111331S39.DTL

I find myself more angry than I was when I first heard the results. I am tired of being told all that we should have done, even when we did it. It all just sounds like "you should have been nicer and then we would have given you your rights". I am not alone.

I believe the gay community has finally hit a breaking point, even more so than during the AIDS crisis with groups like ACT UP. We are beyond that now and are stronger for it. I think we are going to see a lot more stories like this. We have always been perceived as docile and weak. This has radically changed. It has come in steps and they have been slow (though I never thought I would see this in my lifetime). Stonewall, Anita Bryant , AIDS, and now this - it is energizing, angry, sometimes childish and empowering.

I don't know how it will end, and it sometimes hurts intensely (more than I thought it could). I do have a lot of hope but it is fraught with anxiety (I feel like Gary Cooper watching the clock).

I do feel whichever way it goes, it is going to be big.

Of course it does. She wasn't trying to make your point. She had her own axe to grind.

The media seem fixated on promulgating the myth that opposition to same-gender marriage is somehow connected to race, but the data show that it is connected to church attendance. And it happens that among Blacks and Hispanics, church attendance is much more prevalent than among Whites. Is that a racial characteristic? I think not.

Indeed. Bayard Rustin suffered from this kind of rejection, and was careful to keep his sexual orientation under wraps "for the good of the cause". He was candid about his sexuality, but he wasn't "openly gay". Again, from wikipedia:


Certainly homophobia was, and is, is rampant in White, Latino, and Black communities (though, I am led to believe, it is far less common in Asian communities), but as I have been pointing out, it is more connected to the power of the Church than the power of race.

Steve, it may not be a racial characteristic but, in my experience, it is certainly a cultural characteristic. I honestly do not like the way the race thing is being played up. It came as no surprise to me that African Americans and Latinos would vote for this change to our Constitution.

The fact is that religion is the root of all of this. Whether it be Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, etc. It is religion that fouled the waters. This is absolutely not a race issue, even though within the African American and Latino communities, religion is an important component. I don't think that can be argued, but I personally do not know any atheists in those communities (even the gay ones).

I can say that with confidence because I know the objections to gays in general always come from the religious. They can discard everything that directly affects them from their holy books, but they cannot let go of the gay thing.

I remember, years ago, reading that when straight people heard that someone was gay, all they could imagine was that person having sex and it was icky to them. This comes as no surprise since our minority status is based solely on our sexual orientation. You can't say "gay" without some mental image that includes sexuality.

I believe that this writer has placed race above sexuality. She really does seem to have an axe to grind but rather than an overall complaint, I believe her complaint is specific to her feelings about the gay community. And it is valid. I have always been surprised at the racism I have experienced within the community. Never mind the rest of society, I have heard many racist remarks within the sometimes insular world we inhabit. I have never understood it and have fought it when it has come before me. I believe her perspective is colored by this.

I firmly believe that religion is the enemy of any advancement in our society. I am open to arguments about the good religions have done, but in this case, I can guarantee that nothing will persuade me from this position.

that is not what I see. It is something I have focused on only because it is so insulting. I focused on Ms. Cannick's commentary in large part because of her attempt to blame me for the failure of the black community to honor my rights to the same equality of legal treatment that I worked hard for her to enjoy.

I agree completely with this analysis, Steve, which, from my viewpoint, reinforces the unconstitutional quality of the effort - i.e., trying to promote a religious viewpoint in public policy. It does not matter that the unconstitutional act was promoted by the majority if it violates fundamental constitutional precepts.