Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Books

Blaming Black Voters for California Prop 8 Loss Is Wrong and Destructive

By Kathryn Kolbert
President
People For the American Way Foundation

The past few days have brought an extraordinary range of emotions - great joy at the election of Barack Obama and defeat of John McCain, and sadness and anger at the passage of anti-gay initiatives in Florida, Arizona, Arkansas, and California. That sadness has turned to outrage at the speed with which some white gay activists began blaming African Americans - sometimes in appallingly racist ways - for the defeat of Proposition 8. This is inexcusable.

As a mother who has raised two children in a 30-year relationship with another woman, I fully understand the depth of hurt and anger at voters' rejection of our families' equality. But responding to that hurt by lashing out at African Americans is deeply wrong and offensive - not to mention destructive to the goal of advancing equality.

Before we give Religious Right leaders more reasons to rejoice by deepening the divisions they have worked so hard to create between African Americans and the broader progressive community, let's be clear about who is responsible for gay couples in California losing the right to get married, and let's think strategically about a way forward that broadens and strengthens support for equality.

Others have taken on the challenge of looking at the basic numbers and concluded that it is simply false to suggest that Prop 8 would have been defeated if African Americans had been more supportive. The amendment seems to have passed by more than half a million votes, and the number of black voters, even with turnout boosted by the presidential race, couldn't have made up that difference. That's an important fact, but when African American supporters of equality are being called racist epithets at protests about Prop 8, the numbers almost seem beside the point.

Republicans and white churchgoers, among many other groups, voted for Prop. 8 at higher rates than African Americans. There are few African Americans in the inland counties that all voted overwhelmingly to strip marriage equality out of the California constitution. So why single out African Americans? Who's really to blame? The Religious Right. Let's start here:

* Conservative evangelical leaders who are unremittingly hostile to the rights of gay people and who put Prop. 8 on the ballot and bombarded pastors, churchgoers, and the public with lies about gay people wanting to destroy their religious liberty and come for their children - even suggesting that Christians would be thrown in jail if Prop 8 passed.

* Mormon Church leaders who turned Prop. 8 into a national religious crusade against gay couples, badgered Mormons nationwide to give heavily to the campaign, and recruited thousands of footsoldiers for door-to-door canvassing (special kudos to the courageous Mormons who challenged the Church leadership).

* Conservative Catholic leaders who betrayed Catholic teaching about human dignity by enthusiastically joining forces with campaign organizers who portrayed supporters of gay equality as evil and satanic.

* "Yes on Prop 8" leaders whose view of the campaign as a battle between good and evil led to an "ends justifies the means" campaign that included grossly distorted ads, mailings, and robocalls directed at African Americans and falsely portrayed Barack Obama as a Prop 8 supporter.

There will be plenty of post-game analysis of the No on 8 campaign's choices and strategies, and that's not the purpose of this memo. But it is clear that the Yes on 8 campaign had a far more aggressive and systematic outreach to African American religious leaders and voters. If we either take black voters for granted because they are "supposed to" be liberal, or we write them out of our campaign strategies because we label them inherently homophobic, we cannot turn around and make them the scapegoat for our failings.

Here's a fact that creates some perspective. On November 4 there was an anti-gay initiative on the ballot in Arkansas to prohibit unmarried couples from adopting or being foster parents. White voters supported that anti-gay initiative by a 16 percentage point margin, twice the margin for African Americans in the state. So it's clearly not the case that African Americans are inherently more prone to supporting discrimination than white Americans.

We need a broad and ongoing strategy to create and sustain constructive dialogue at the intersections of race, religion, sexuality, and politics. And it should go without saying that partnership is a two-way street. How many white LGBT leaders and activists have been at the forefront of battles to preserve affirmative action, or raise the minimum wage?

The Right's Big Investments Pay Big Dividends

The Religious Right has invested in systematic outreach to the most conservative elements of the Black Church, creating and promoting national spokespeople like Bishop Harry Jackson, and spreading the big lie that gays are out to destroy religious freedom and prevent pastors from preaching about homosexuality from the pulpit.

In addition, Religious Right leaders have exploited the discomfort among many African Americans with white gays who seem more ready to embrace the language and symbols of the civil rights movement than to be strong allies in the continuing battle for equal opportunity. At a series of Religious Right events, demagogic African American pastors have accused the gay rights movement of "hijacking" and "raping" the civil rights movement.

The effort to stir anti-gay emotions among African Americans by suggesting that gays are trying to "hijack" the civil rights movement is not new. During a Cincinnati referendum in 1993, anti-gay groups produced a videotape targeted to African American audiences; the tape featured Trent Lott, Ed Meese and other right-wing luminaries warning that protecting the civil rights of lesbians and gay men would come at the expense of civil rights gains made by the African American community. It was an astonishing act of hypocrisy for Lott and Meese to show concern for those civil rights gains, given their career-long hostility to civil rights principles and enforcement, but the strategy worked that year. Eleven years later, however, African American religious leaders and voters helped pass an initiative striking the anti-gay provision from the city charter. (The story of that successful fairness campaign is told in an award-winning mini-documentary - A Blinding Flash of the Obvious - that is part of a Focus on Fairness toolkit produced by People For the American Way Foundation.)

In California this year, national and local white anti-gay religious leaders worked hard to create alliances with African American clergy; Harry Jackson was busy in both California and Florida stirring opposition to marriage equality. None of the Right's outreach to African Americans on gay rights issues in recent years has been a secret. Neither has polling that showed some deterioration in African American support for full equality. But there hasn't been the same investment in systematic outreach from the gay rights community.

Support Champions, Not Undermine Them

In the face of the Right's efforts to stir anti-gay sentiment among African Americans, many civil rights leaders have been powerful advocates for LGBT equality, among them Julian Bond, John Lewis, and the late Coretta Scott King. These leaders are deeply committed to the value of fairness and the constitutional principle of equality under the law, and they understand that strengthening the hand of far right leaders is not in any way in the interest of the African American community.

Angrily blaming African Americans for the passage of Prop 8 is not going to help open doors for the kind of long-term conversations we need to have about homophobia and discrimination. It will, instead, further isolate and undermine courageous African American leaders who have taken a firm stand for equality. Alice Huffman, president of the state NAACP, has been an outspoken champion on equality and on Prop 8, and right-wing leaders are fomenting attacks on her from within the organization. People like Alice Huffman need our support and strategic thinking, not complaints or condemnation.

Broad-brush denunciation of African Americans by white gay leaders also fosters the incredibly damaging perception that the LGBT and African American communities are two separate, rather than overlapping entities, and undermines the work of African American LGBT leaders.

Religion, Homophobia and Marriage Equality

The far right has aggressively sought to use traditional religious beliefs about homosexuality as a wedge to separate African Americans from progressive allies and particularly from the LGBT rights movement. In response, People For the American Way Foundation's African American Ministers Leadership Council has created an Equal Justice Task Force and made a commitment to a multi-year effort to take on homophobia in the black church and broader African American community.

As part of that long-term campaign, People For the American Way Foundation conducted focus groups among African American churchgoers in California in September. Among men and women, and among younger and older groups, we found strong opposition to discrimination against LGBT people in employment and housing. And we found widespread support for legal protections for committed couples. Among all groups there was generally a live-and-let-live attitude toward gay people in their communities and congregations, and a recognition that couples deserve some basic legal protections. People For the American Way Foundation produced and ran three radio ads designed to tap that instinct for fairness and encouraging African Americans to oppose anti-gay discrimination.

But our focus groups also showed us that marriage equality faces a higher hurdle. Many people in our focus groups had difficulty sorting out the difference between civil marriage and marriage as a religious institution. Even some of the most eloquent opponents of discrimination argued that marriage was somehow different because they saw it as an inherently religious act that God had designed to be between a man and a woman. Rev. Kenneth Samuel, chair of the AAMLC's Equal Justice Task Force, says we need to be in "tough and loving" conversation to get people to think differently about that question, and to grapple with separating religious belief from commitment to constitutional principles of equality under the law. That's a hard conversation to have in the midst of a heated political campaign.

Samuel was among the leaders of workshops at the California NAACP convention in October on homophobia in the black church. The overflow sessions went on for hours, demonstrating that there is a real hunger for the kind of honest, rousing conversation about homophobia, discrimination, love, equality, scripture, and politics. People's hearts were changed, even if everyone didn't end the session ready to fully embrace marriage equality.

As an outgrowth of those workshops, Rev. Gerald Johnson, the Individual Rights and Advocacy Vice Chair of the state NAACP, asked for volunteers to develop and submit a resolution that resolved to: "develop partnerships with African American civic and religious leaders to educate, train, and advocate for cultural competency and sensitivity in the greater African American community as it relates to gay and lesbian concerns." That resolution passed overwhelmingly.

In preparation for those workshops and other clergy roundtables and training sessions, People For the American Way Foundation created a video documenting right-wing efforts to co-opt the black church by embracing and lifting up the voices of anti-gay conservative black clergy. In that video, Rev. Samuel describes Religious Right leaders who believe welfare is satanic and the minimum wage and other worker protections are ungodly, and he asks, "what are the consequences of lending our voices, our moral and spiritual authority, to those who seek our support to deny the dignity, humanity, and equality of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters?"

Rev. Samuel speaks movingly about the religious journey that led him to begin preaching a gospel of inclusion - and his commitment to stick with it even when a thousand members left his church. He understands how deeply questions of homophobia and marriage are rooted in understandings of scripture and the traditions of the black church. Here's how Rev. Samuel concludes that video:

I know that within the Black Church we have different theological views about sexuality. But I believe we can find common ground against mistreating our brothers and sisters in the words of Jesus to love our neighbors as ourselves. And we can find common ground in opposing discrimination in the constitutional principle of equal justice under the law that we fought so hard to make a reality.

I believe the Black Church loses a bit of its soul every time we sacrifice the well-being of our gay brothers and sisters - every time we make political alliances at their expense. I believe it is our calling to be a consistent voice for justice. And I do believe that "A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

The LGBT-equality movement needs to recognize that its real enemies are the Religious Right organizations and leaders who oppose gay and lesbian equality and who devise and fund strategies like Prop 8. And we must commit now to building long-term partnerships with equality-affirming African American clergy and community leaders that will allow us to advance the progressive values that we share.

Before being named President of People For the American Way and People For the American Way Foundation, Kolbert was a Senior Research Administrator with the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania and the Executive Producer of Justice Talking, an award-winning weekly public radio show about law and American life. Kolbert has been recognized repeatedly by The National Law Journal as one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America," and named by The American Lawyer as one of 45 public interest lawyers "whose vision and commitment are changing lives."

Posted on November 09, 2008

Comments

The leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ ("Mormon") did not "badger" people into donating to Prop 8 -- trust me, they didn't need to. I find it interesting, however, that when President-elect Barack Obama raises millions of dollars and fires up previously dormant voting blocs (college students and African-Americans) everyone (me included) considers that a great thing. But when other groups participate in the democratic process, those on the losing side can't find enough epithets to hurl. The double standard is troubling, and regular Americans are watching.

Posted by: Dropping By at November 9, 2008 09:37 AM

I am already hearing reports of a Mormon church being vandalized with the words "No to Prop 8" spray painted on it. If a gay person (or any person) attacks / targets a specific religious group is this considered a hate crime?

Posted by: Question at November 9, 2008 10:05 AM

So, blaming Black voters is "wrong and destructive" but demonizing Religious Right organizations is perfectly acceptable? This comment you made seems to sum it up quite well: "The LGBT-equality movement needs to recognize that its real enemies are the Religious Right organizations and leaders who oppose gay and lesbian equality and who devise and fund strategies like Prop 8." I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When I voted YES on Prop 8, I did so in support of what I believe to be the divine institution of marriage, between a man and a woman. At work I interact with many members of the LGBT community. I don't hate them and nor do I treat them any differently than anyone else. They are not my enemy, they are sons and daughters of God, my brothers and sisters. Perhaps the efforts of the LGBT community would be more effective in improving the rights of civil unions for same-sex couples rather than intruding on marriage and fighting against the faithful and religious. . .

http://yes-on-prop8.blogspot.com/

Posted by: AlexT at November 9, 2008 10:27 AM

Fighting against the faithful? It boggles the mind to see people who have just taken steps to write discrimination into the Constitution try to frame this issue with "the faithful" as victims. They need to look at the numbers carefully. Many religious people voted no on 8 for the same reason non-religious people overwhelmingly voted no on 8 - because they thought it was wrong that citizens should be governed on the basis of a particular religious persuasion. Thank you, Ms. Kolbert, for pointing out that within the "my religion should control all of you" vote skin color was not the determining factor.

Posted by: Alan J. McCornick at November 9, 2008 10:47 AM

As a life-long Mormon who has attended worship meetings every week in 2008, I can tell you with surety that I was never "badgered" into supporting Prop 8. In fact, Prop 8 was mentioned only once, in an over the pulpit announcement that it was on the ballot. It might be surprising to those who spend their lives wrapped in policy and politics, but worship meeting at Mormon meeting focus on just that - worship. Our goal there is simply to learn, to give penance, to renew, to improve, and to learn to love and behave as God, who will wholly love and worship, would have us do. We are your neighbors, hopefully your friends, and your fellow travelers. To believe that the 13 million of us are each mindless, badgered, and spineless is belittling and certainly non-productive. I pledge to listen close. I have read every word on this page. Will you please do the same when we express our heartfelt opinion?

Posted by: GregM at November 9, 2008 11:05 AM

It's a bizarre notion that people who feel that marriage is between a man and a woman simply don't have all of the facts and that they can be convinced otherwise.

People that feel marriage is between a man and a woman are neither uninformed, nor are they haters or bigots.

Their concerns are for their children and a marriage between a man and a woman is the model that they want their children to pattern themselves on.

An expanded model legitimizing same sex marriage poses a real threat to families with young children and that is why they voted for Prop 8.

The alternative could very well have increased the odds that branches of our family trees would be permanently clipped and that grandchildren with our eyes, the shape of their face or smile will not be forthcoming.

If protecting my families interests are now being characterized and defined as bigoted, then call me a bigot.

Someone recently asked me “If two gay people get married and it makes their family happy why can't your family be happy? What are they doing to you?”

My answer was that their families have already accepted the decision their -adult- children have made. It wasn't a decision they made for themselves and it was probably not something that they had hoped for when their children were very young.

I have no problem with the concept of a civil union but young families should not be forced to participate with the State and accept that same sex marriage is an acceptable path for their children. Your asking way too much.

If my child -became an adult- and choose to partner with someone of the same sex, I would likely (grudgingly) support my child but it would be a huge void in our life knowing that grandchildren are not a possibility. I WOULD NOT put myself in the position to call it a marriage and burden the new parents behind us by insisting that they think that it is the same thing. It isn't.

All of those twenty/thirty somethings that were protesting yesterday have little life experiences and NO clue to what it means to mom's and dad's and to their grandparents to raise a child. I'd bet that none of those protesters were parents.

Posted by: DavidC at November 9, 2008 11:33 AM

I was at a protest on Friday. Yes, there were a lot of young people, but I also saw many (yes, many) people in their 50's and 60's. I also saw quite a few children. One was holding a sign that said "Please let my parents get married". There are many types of young families, you know.

Why didn't Prop 8 say "Gay marriage shall not be taught in schools" or "Churches shall not lose their tax exempt status for their beliefs about homosexuality"? Because that was not the point. The point was to take my marriage away from me, based on the idea that who I love is a bad "decision" I made as an adult rather than something I was born with. Who would choose to live a life this difficult? I would venture to say that you have NO clue what it feels like to fight for so long and so hard for something as basic as marrying the love of my life. And by the way, if your child does end up with a same-sex partner, you will spend many nights awake trying to figure out why you voted her rights away.

Posted by: Kate at November 9, 2008 09:48 PM

I am writing this from the context of an overseas perspective, from Egypt specifically. Perhaps is is worth noting that while Barack Obama had 80% support around the world he only won by 52 percent in the USA. Similarly, Proposition 8 would likely gain an 80% support around the world since marriage is viewed as a relationship between a woman and a man, a fundamental social relationship in most societies. If those of you who are against Proposition 8 insist on applying the term "marriage" to same-sex relationships, would you be so considerate as to provide a term that will recognize the uniqueness of a long term relationship between a man and a woman? It appears that the term "marriage" is being hijacked to mean something else.

Posted by: Garry Schmidt at November 9, 2008 11:54 PM

I was married at a time & place when a blood test was required in order to obtain a marriage license. We never viewed this as a license to have sex or a license to love someone; you just don't need a license, or anyone's permission, for either of those. To us, a marriage license is "a license to enter into a long-term contract to produce children in order to perpetuate our society."

Even if you take the religious and romantic aspects completely out of the argument (which I don't, which has helped the longevity of my marriage), the simple reality is that in order to continue a viable society, we need long-term, committed marriage between a man and a woman who are dedicated to not just bearing, but raising children. I firmly believe that special consideration should be given to couples who produce and intend to raise children to be productive members of our society. Some of those children may be born with heterosexual attractions and others with homosexual attractions, but the point is that they have to be born first.

It seems to me that our efforts would be better focused on fixing, rather than redefining, the heterosexual relationships that perpetuate our society. While it is important to recognize that any couple of any gender can be committed to each other (and therefore treated as family in "family members only" situations), we also have to admit the biological reality that we need A MAN AND A WOMAN to procreate, and accept the research that when implemented correctly, the most healthy environment for a child includes a MOTHER AND A FATHER. To recognize and encourage these couplings with a special designation--namely, marriage--does not detract from the validity of other committed relationships.

As an aside, my aged (white) parents still live in California, though I do not (so I was not able to vote on Prop 8). They voted FOR Obama and FOR Proposition 8!

Posted by: Old Timer at November 10, 2008 12:38 AM

the religious right wouldn't be so effective if people weren't all that stupid. so, yes, blacks are in part to blame.

Posted by: The Doctor at November 10, 2008 11:47 AM

What is the point of applying the word "marriage" to a union of two women, two men, or even polyamorous (a.k.a. polygamous) relationships? What is to be gained by calling it marriage instead of civil union? The only reason I can see is to attempt to force society at large to accept your lifestyle choice (and yes, living the lifestyle is a choice, even if it turns out to be proven that one is born with those attractions). I see the same thing when a group of kindergarteners are taken to view a lesbian wedding without notifying their parents, and when a high school is shown (explicitly) how to perform homosexual acts, again without notifying the parents. It's an attempt to convert to your side the people who don't yet have the critical thinking skills to make their own informed decisions.

It reminds me of a quote:

When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community." --Adolph Hitler, 1933

Posted by: Wordsmith at November 10, 2008 03:26 PM

My partner & I were the first gay couple in greater San Diego to adopt through the County Adoption Services. We adopted 2 brothers that were determined to be 'unadoptable'. Those little boys were 3 & 4 years old then, and one of them just turned 18 on November 4th, did all his homework to get himself registered to vote and did so: for Obama and against Prop 8. Can anyone deny our familyhood? Oh and guess what, they didn't turn out gay from living with gays!
Another bubble to burst, for GregM shown above, with his "All of those twenty/thirty somethings that were protesting yesterday have little life experiences and NO clue to what it means to mom's and dad's and to their grandparents to raise a child. I'd bet that none of those protesters were parents." You lose that bet, I'm 64 years old. I've marched for blacks and women, too. And here we go again for Civil Rights.
Oh, and about 'What is to be gained by calling it marriage instead of civil union?' Think about it, and you too may come up with about 1200 differences!
That some LDS folks were NOT asked to give their time and or money to help the Yes on 8 cause is a sign that some pulpits did not promote what their fellows were promoting--good for them!

Posted by: Papa Tom at November 10, 2008 08:33 PM

What gets forgotten in many of the sincere comments made here is that we are talking about the personal lives of thousands of American couples that shouldn't be interfered with anymore than yours are. Proposition 8 makes the personal lives of gays and lesbians the business of the state. It erodes the important Separation of Church and State clause in our Constitution. In our American Democracy we pride ourselves on Liberty and Justice for All. There are only 18,000 gay married couples in California and they pose no threat to anyone and certainly not to the sanctity of marriage which is far more sullied by the tens of millions of divorced heterosexual couples in the US. Gays and lesbians will always be a minority; that is a biological certainty! I find it disillusioning that, in America, religion is behind this very un-democratic, narrow-minded intolerance. It cost you nothing to let these couples be supported by their state. Why is religion fighting parental, custodial and survivorship rights of couples in a democracy? This type of religious oppression is an old and tired story in human history, but making it legal today would only delay the inevitable! Future generations of American’s will never tolerate the rank hypocrisy and caustic prejudice that keeps humanity small-minded and unconscious.

Posted by: MarkInEugene at November 10, 2008 09:41 PM

I find this article has a racist slant, honestly. It's insinuating that Black voters are less sophisticated than White voters and can be easily manipulated by the "evil religious right". Maybe they were just adults who had a different opinion. Let's give everyone the respect they deserve by allowing everyone to make decisions without claiming commercial brainwashing.

Do you really want to know who's to blame for this? The majority of California, because that's who voted for it.

Posted by: Rick at November 10, 2008 09:44 PM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker