Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority

THIS IS A FANTASTIC OP-ED PIECE FROM THE NY TIMES. THE 'NO ON PROP 8' CAMPAIGN LEADERS WOULD BE WISE TO HEED THIS VERY SMART MAN'S VOICE THE NEXT TIME AROUND!!

November 29, 2008

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority

By CHARLES M. BLOW

We now know that blacks probably didn’t tip the balance for Proposition 8. Myth busted. However, the fact remains that a strikingly high percentage of blacks said they voted to ban same-sex marriage in California. Why?

There was one very telling (and virtually ignored) statistic in CNN’s exit poll data that may shed some light: There were far more black women than black men, and a higher percentage of them said that they voted for the measure than the men. How wide was the gap? According to the exit poll, 70 percent of all blacks said that they voted for the proposition. But 75 percent of black women did. There weren’t enough black men in the survey to provide a reliable percentage for them. However, one can mathematically deduce that of the raw number of survey respondents, nearly twice as many black women said that they voted for it than black men.

Why? Here are my theories:

(1) Blacks are much more likely than whites to attend church, according to a Gallup report, and black women are much more likely to attend church than black men. Anyone who has ever been to a black church can attest to the disparity in the pews. And black women’s church attendance may be increasing.

According to a report issued this spring by Child Trends, a nonprofit research center, weekly church attendance among black 12th graders rose 26 percent from 1993 to 2006, while weekly church attendance for white 12th graders remained virtually flat. In 2006, those black teenagers were nearly 50 percent more likely to attend church once a week than their white counterparts. And it is probably safe to assume that many of them were going to church with their mothers since Child Trends reported that around the time that they were born, nearly 70 percent of all black children were born to single mothers.

(2) This high rate of church attendance by blacks informs a very conservative moral view. While blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, an analysis of three years of national data from Gallup polls reveals that their views on moral issues are virtually indistinguishable from those of Republicans. Let’s just call them Afropublicrats.

(3) Marriage can be a sore subject for black women in general. According to 2007 Census Bureau data, black women are the least likely of all women to be married and the most likely to be divorced. Women who can’t find a man to marry might not be thrilled about the idea of men marrying each other.

Proponents of gay marriage would do well to focus on these women if they want to win black votes. A major reason is that black women vote at a higher rate than black men. In the CNN national exit poll, there were 40 percent more black women than black men, and in California there were 50 percent more. But gay marriage advocates need to hone their strategy to reach them.

First, comparing the struggles of legalizing interracial marriage with those to legalize gay marriage is a bad idea. Many black women do not seem to be big fans of interracial marriage either. They’re the least likely of all groups to intermarry, and many don’t look kindly on the black men who intermarry at nearly three times the rate that they do, according to a 2005 study of black intermarriage rates in the Wisconsin Law Review. Wrong reference. Don’t even go there.

Second, don’t debate the Bible. You can’t win. Religious faith is not defined by logic, it defies it. Instead, decouple the legal right from the religious rite, and emphasize the idea of acceptance without endorsement.

Then, make it part of a broader discussion about the perils of rigidly applying yesterday’s sexual morality to today’s sexual mores. Show black women that it backfires. The stigma doesn’t erase the behavior, it pushes it into the shadows where, devoid of information and acceptance, it become more risky.

For instance, most blacks find premarital sex unacceptable, according to the Gallup data. But, according to data from a study by the Guttmacher Institute, blacks are 26 percent more likely than any other race to have had premarital sex by age 18, and the pregnancy rate for black teens is twice that of white teens. They still have premarital sex, but they do so uninformed and unprotected.

That leads to a bigger problem. According to a 2004 report by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, black women have an abortion rate that is three times that of white women.

More specifically, blacks overwhelmingly say that homosexuality isn’t morally acceptable. So many black men hide their sexual orientations and engage in risky behavior. This has resulted in large part in black women’s becoming the fastest-growing group of people with H.I.V. In a 2003 study of H.I.V.-infected people, 34 percent of infected black men said they had sex with both men and women, while only 6 percent of infected black women thought their partners were bisexual. Tragic. (In contrast, only 13 percent of the white men in the study said they had sex with both men and women, while 14 percent of the white women said that they knew their partners were bisexual.)

So pitch it as a health issue. The more open blacks are to the idea of homosexuality, the more likely black men would be to discuss their sexual orientations and sexual histories. The more open they are, the less likely black women would be to put themselves at risk unwittingly. And, the more open blacks are to homosexuality over all, the more open they are likely to be to gay marriage. This way, everyone wins.

E-mail chblow@nytimes.com

EQUAL RIGHTS

Click on the title to watch this brief video. 

I made this movie for our two year old son, Xavier. 

When we woke up on that Wednesday morning, my heart broke trying to imagine a way to explain five million votes against his family, against his parents' marriage. Day turned into night, however, and we were surrounded by a chorus of a thousand voices chanting their solidarity and support. This is the story that I can now proudly tell him.

Watch to the end to see our budding little activist in action...

PS. The song "True Colors" played at our wedding reception, one of the songs from 1986, when we met 22 years ago.

PPS. Watch it in "high quality." 

Which side of history do you want to be on?

Click on the title to watch a brief, video history of discrimination in our country, ending with the heinous Proposition 8.

WHAT HARVEY MILK TELLS US ABOUT PROPOSITION 8

Thirty years ago on election night Harvey Milk gave an electrifying speech at the "No on Proposition 6" headquarters in the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco. The results were in: Proposition 6 was going down to defeat.

In 1978, Proposition 6 ( "the Briggs Initiative") was the California ballot measure aimed at preventing gay people and supporters from working as teachers in public schools. Harvey Milk was a San Francisco city council member who had been in office for a mere ten months. Through his role in this campaign he proved himself to be more than just an "elected gay official." He was a leader at the height of his powers. When introduced to the crowd that night by Sally Gearhart (another important figure in the fight against Proposition 6), the response to Harvey was thunderous. He proceeded to give one of the greatest speeches of his relatively short political career.

Although there are many parallels to be made between Proposition 6 (1978) and Proposition 8 (2008) there are also many differences. Unlike Proposition 8, Proposition 6 had a name, a face, and a personality as its figurehead in the person of State Senator John Briggs. Briggs came across as a seemingly opportunistic and somewhat ineffectual politician, but regardless of his baboonery, the issue that he and his supporters tapped into -- "gay teachers" -- was volatile enough to find large-scale support among the electorate. Only one month before the election it looked as if it would be a very close vote, with the majority of California voters in favor of its passage.

On the other side, we had Harvey Milk as our figurehead, a "community organizer" who understood the value and importance of a well-coordinated grass-roots campaign. As a coordinated master plan, Harvey debated Briggs in high school gyms and on TV and radio, while an army of well-trained volunteers went about "canvassing" door-to-door, speaking with people on the streets and in the shopping centers about the potential consequences of the "anti-gay" Briggs Initiative. Eventually, enough voters were convinced that the measure was both unnecessary and a possible violation of constitutional rights. Proposition 6 went down by a resounding 59 to 42 percent. 

On election night Harvey delivered his galvanizing speech with gale-wind force:

...to the gay community all over this state, my message to you is, so far a lot of people joined us and rejected Proposition 6, and we owe them something. We owe them to continue the education campaign that took place. We must destroy the myths once and for all, shatter them. We must continue to speak out, and most importantly, most importantly, every gay person must come out. As difficult as it is you must tell your immediate family, you must tell your relatives, you must tell your friends, if indeed they are your friends, you must tell your neighbors, you must tell the people you work with, you must tell the people in the stores you shop in (thunderous applause), and once they realize that we are indeed their children, that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and for all. And once you do, you will feel so much better.

In light of the passage of Proposition 8, Harvey's message of thirty years ago remains as vital today as it was then. It is our responsibility to let our loved ones, co-workers, friends, and neighbors know who we are, so that those who vote in favor of discrimination have our names and faces in their minds eye when doing so.

Although Proposition 8 wasn't exactly a re-make of Proposition 6, it's the same disaster movie storyline pitch: any recognition of constitutional rights for gay and lesbian citizens will somehow destroy the natural order and as a result America's institutions -- be they schools or marriage--will crumble.

Harvey pitched a different storyline: an accommodating democratic society based on constitutional principles, including the separation of church and state, and equality for all its citizens will make our country stronger and freer. But Harvey was more than just a good pitchman. He had an innate sense of history, and as a result he made his mark on history. Three weeks after his Proposition 6 victory speech Harvey was killed, and we're still waiting for another leader of his ilk to emerge. While we may not be able to predict from where or when real leaders come, eventually they do. In the meantime, as we celebrate the election of a man whose own parents' interracial marriage would not have been legal in sixteen states prior to 1967, Harvey we're still waiting.

Rob Epstein is the director of the Oscar winning film The Times of Harvey Milk, and is this years' recipient of the International Documentary Association's Pioneer Award.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND EL COYOTE

I have been with my partner for 22 years now. We are raising a son, who is now two. It was extremely important and meaningful to us, as well as to our family and friends, that we honor our long term relationship - and our son - by getting married. The night before our wedding, my family and friends all gathered at El Coyote restaurant to celebrate. We had a wonderful time at El Coyote that night and, collectively, spent hundreds of dollars.

Now I've learned that Marjorie Christofferson, the owner of El Coyote was a contributor to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.

I feel violated.

Like I ordered a margarita and a taco, but was instead served the dissolution of my marriage and the loss of my family's civil rights.

Oh wait - that is what happened.

I was horrified to realize I'd funded my own discrimination.

Needless to say, this was a terrible shock. Like buying a hunting rifle for a neighbor, who then turned around and shot me in the ass. I can never step foot in that restaurant again. To me, it's akin to asking a black family to frequent the soul food restaurant owned by a Klansman, or a Jew to dine at the Kosher Deli run by a Nazi war criminal. People who are not gay may construe these comparisons as overheated. Those who are gay, growing up terrified to even hold the hand of the person they love, will not.

Since the gay and lesbian community has been disrespected and marginalized for so many generations now, no one realizes the full scope of the shocking, violent, often murderous discrimination that continues, to this day, to be levied against our people. Even the gay community itself doesn't fully realize it. We've been so busy creating our own little safe havens, protecting ourselves from the hatred and bigotry that we know is out there, that we've neglected to come together as a people - outside of the occasional White Party, of course, or the latest farewell tour from Cher.

But it's serious now, and I think people have suddenly realized it. The bubbles have been burst, the safe havens ransacked. When I woke up on Wednesday morning, I looked into the eyes of my two year old son, just waking up in his crib, and my heart broke. I couldn't imagine how I could possibly explain to him the five million people who just voted against his family, against his Daddy and his Papa, against the wedding where he so admirably carried his parents' rings down the aisle. I could feel the hatred seeping in through the windows of our home, the slime dripping off the walls. I felt victimized. I even considered taking my ring off.

But then the love, support and strength started to trickle in, bubbling up through the phone calls and the emails, and a new determination started to harden in my stomach. The day ended at the intersection of Santa Monica and San Vincente, with my husband by my side and my son in my arms, surrounded by a chorus of thousands, chanting for the restoration of our community's equal rights.

My shattered marriage was pieced back together by that strong, bracing chorus, and a new day was born for our community.

With that new day comes new strength - and new responsibility. Personally, I think the "blacklists" that are being sent around, outing contributors to Prop 8, are a bit much. I think it's time to educate, not attack, and we all know where the education needs to take place. I can't step back into El Coyote for very personal reasons, but I'm not going to picket outside the office of some Mormon orthodontist in Orange County for his $500 contribution. But I do hope Marjorie Christofferson - and that orthodontist, while we're at it - does learn the lesson. She needs to know that we, as a people, are not the monolithic evil her Mormon church has convinced her we are, but rather the individual human beings that have comprised her staff, her friends, her community and customers - those same people that have kept her restaurant in business for years now, bought her house and sent her children to school. Her church asks her to separate the "sin" from the "sinner," because they know this makes it easier to discriminate. She has been convinced that she's supporting the opposition of sin, and not discriminating against her friends and customers. She is wrong, and the Mormon church that brainwashes her into believing this is wrong as well.

More importantly, however, I've come to believe that we need to defend the Mormons' right to be wrong. Yes, you heard me. The Mormons should be able to say and do whatever they want within the four walls of their own church. But that's where it must end. Their specific religious beliefs should have never been allowed to come within shouting distance of the state's constitution.

I was married to my husband in a Lutheran church by a loving, intelligent, devout pastor, who sanctioned our marriage with all his heart and soul. He believes that God was present in that church, at our wedding. And so do I. Nobody - and I mean nobody - should be allowed to mess with that.

That is my church - our church - and everyone else needs to stay out of it. That, my friends, is what's known as religious freedom. Remember that old chestnut? The whole basis of this country's founding? Is this ringing any bells? My Lutheran church does not believe the way Mormons believe, and Mormons don't believe the way Lutherans believe. Or Episcopalians. Or progressive Jews. Mormons don't want gay marriage? Great! Then we won't get married in your temple. You can no longer protest gay marriage on religious grounds. You can only protest gay marriage on your religious grounds. You leave our church alone, and we'll leave yours.

This has all gone dangerously beyond what is already a violation of church/state separation. Now that over 18,000 same-sex couples have been married in the state of California, many of us in churches who welcome and celebrate our love, this has become a matter of religious freedom, pure and simple.

Leave my marriage alone. And, while you're at it, leave my church alone too.

The Differences Between Civil Unions and Marriage

One of the most frustrating and damaging lies of the recent "Yes On Prop 8" campaign was their claim that civil unions and marriage were the same, and that this was not about denying equal rights to gay and lesbian couples.

This could not be further from the truth.

There are hundreds of differences between civil unions and marriages, yet no one even questioned or challenged those who repeated this lie, from elected officials, to the man on the street to the ladies on "The View."

Here's a bullet point version of the main differences between civil unions and marriage.
All it takes is a simple Google search to verify this information for yourself.

The right to marry is not just about the actual legal ceremony, but an equal right to the extensive list of legal protections awarded to married couples. These benefits given to legally married couples range from tax relief to medical decision making. Civil unions and domestic partnerships may seem like equal unions, but the protections they give to registered couples is often far less than that of marriage.

Question: Why do we need gay marriage and not just civil unions? Here are a few reasons:

Number of Legal Benefits:

Marriage: Over 1,049 federal and state level benefits (see list)
Civil Unions: Over 300 state level benefits. *No federal protection (see benefit example)

Tax Relief:
Marriage: Couples can file both federal and state tax returns jointly.
Civil Unions: Couples can only file jointly in the state of civil registration.

Medical Decisions:
Marriage: Partners can make emergency medical decisions.
Civil Unions: Partners can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state.

Gifts:
Marriage: Partners can transfer gifts to each other without tax penalty.
Civil Unions: Partners do not pay state taxes, but are required to report federal taxes.

Death Benefits:
Marriage: In the case of a partner's death, the spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits.
Civil Unions: Partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death. In the case of the death of former Congressman Gerry Studds, his partner of 15 years was denied the government pension that would have gone to a legally recognized spouse.

Child/Spousal Support:
Marriage: In case of divorce, individuals may have a legally-binding financial obligation to spouses and children.
Civil Unions: In the case of dissolution , no such spousal or child benefits are guaranteed or required out of state.

Immigration Rights:
Marriage: U.S. citizens and legal residents can sponsor their spouses and family members for immigration.
Civil Unions: U.S. citizens and legal residents cannot sponsor non-legal spouses or family members. (more on gay immigration rights)

Just as the lies are spread, let us now begin to spread the truth. Let's get informed, so when the subject comes up at the cocktail party, the water cooler or the kitchen table, we're armed with the facts. There are so many out there who are shaping the public opinion with misinformation and even brazen lies, that all we can do is counter with the truth in as many ways as they repeat their lies.

The bigotry and the hatred needs to be set free. Love is no longer enough. We now need the truth. The real gay truth.