NAACP Challenges Proposition 8
In the last election, several states passed anti-gay referendums, and as you recall there was a lot of concern about the role of black voters in that movement. Polls showed that a relatively high percentage of black voters were willing to vote against gay rights. Proposition 8 in California, in particular, got a lot of ink and a lot of money focused on it, and in the end gay marriages were stopped in that state.
This week Pam's House Blend has a notable press release from the National Association of Colored People (NAACP). She doesn't have a link to the source, so I'll copy from her site (bolding is hers):
There is a certain kind of illogic in the idea that one group of people who have fought for their rights should necessarily support another group trying to do the same thing. Just because people want freedom and equal rights doesn't mean they have anything in common. On the other hand, it is very encouraging that this big organization is going to be proactive in reaching out to its community, asking black Americans to consider the oppression of gay citizens as comparable to the oppression they themselves have historically faced.
This week Pam's House Blend has a notable press release from the National Association of Colored People (NAACP). She doesn't have a link to the source, so I'll copy from her site (bolding is hers):
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People today announced support of measures before the California legislature challenging Proposition 8, which altered the California Constitution to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry and equal protection under the law.
In a letter to legislative leaders, NAACP national board chair Julian Bond and President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous urged passage of House Resolution 5 and Senate Resolution 7 to put the legislature on record calling for invalidation of Prop. 8 as an improper and dangerous alteration of the California Constitution.
"The NAACP's mission is to help create a society where all Americans have equal protection and opportunity under the law," said President Jealous. "Our Mission Statement calls for the 'equality of rights of all persons.' Prop. 8 strips same-sex couples of a fundamental freedom, as defined by the California State Supreme Court. In so doing, it poses a serious threat to all Americans. Prop. 8 is a discriminatory, unprecedented change to the California Constitution that, if allowed to stand, would undermine the very purpose of a constitution and courts - assuring equal protection and opportunity for all and safeguarding minorities from the tyranny of the majority."
SR 7, sponsored by Equality California (EQCA), will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 24th and will proceed to the full Senate for a vote shortly thereafter. Its companion bill, HR 5, also sponsored by EQCA, passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Feb. 17th and is eligible for a vote before the full Assembly as early as today.
The California State Conference of the NAACP filed briefs with the California Supreme Court in the legal challenge against Prop. 8, arguing that the measure drastically alters the equal protection guarantee in California's Constitution and that the rights of a minority cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote. Several other civil rights organizations, faith leaders, unions and leading corporations also filed briefs urging the invalidation of Prop. 8.
"The NAACP has long opposed any proposal that would alter the federal or state constitutions for the purpose of excluding any groups or individuals from guarantees of equal protection," said Chairman Bond. "We urge the legislature to declare that Proposition 8 did not follow the proper protective process and should be overturned as an invalid alteration that vitiated crucial constitutional safeguards and fundamental American values, threatening civil rights and all vulnerable minorities." NAACP national calls for Prop 8 to be overturned
There is a certain kind of illogic in the idea that one group of people who have fought for their rights should necessarily support another group trying to do the same thing. Just because people want freedom and equal rights doesn't mean they have anything in common. On the other hand, it is very encouraging that this big organization is going to be proactive in reaching out to its community, asking black Americans to consider the oppression of gay citizens as comparable to the oppression they themselves have historically faced.
posted by JimK at 1:17 PM
18 Comments:
this move will likely discredit the NAACP among minorities who will resent having their racial identity compared to psychic and behavioral characteristics
in short, discriminating against someone based on their behavior may be justified; doing so based on their appearance never is
to imply otherwise is an insult to racial minorities
President B. Hussein O.
what a guy!
he's going to cut the deficit in half by 2013
of course, the current year's deficit is 1.75 trillion, so that means in four years, the deficit will be 875 billion
that's higher than any of the first seven years of Bush's deficits
and that's after raising taxes on all the "rich" people- you know, who make more than 200K
what happened to 250K?
that was the election, baby; this is the real world
of course, it's all Bush's fault
if he had run deficits of trillions like BHO, we wouldn't be in this predicament now
makes sense to me
Someone who actually knows tell me: doesn't the 1.75 billion figure include the stimulus package, while President Obama, when speaking of cutting the deficit in half, is referring to half of 900 billion, i.e. 450?
Comments from anonymoids who have no actual knowledge are not welcomed.
rrjr
obviously, anyone who doesn't worship at the Temple of BHO isn't welcomed
"Someone who actually knows tell me: doesn't the 1.75 billion figure include the stimulus package, while President Obama, when speaking of cutting the deficit in half, is referring to half of 900 billion, i.e. 450?"
Robert
During Bush's first four years, the deficit averaged 436 billion. Even if what you say is true, which it isn't, he still is planning the same type of deficit spending as Bush.
I thought he was so worked up about Bush's disastrous economic policies.
Sounds like we got what we paid for: an inexperienced fool for President.
Do you do anything but bitch and moan, Anonymous??
yes
when something goes right, I'm the first to admit it
when Proposition 8 passed in California, you didn't hear any "bitching" and "moaning" from me
you have heard a lot of it from TTF though
I have also been happy to see the surge succeed in Iraq and see the first African American elected president
there are a lot of other things I applaud but those are just a few that come to mind
As a BLACK GAY man, I always roll my eyes when things like this come up. You have people like Mike Huckabee and those on the far right suddenly defending black folks from those 'evil homosexual' irregardless of the fact when conditions prevailed having nothing to do with gays, these same folks really wouldn't give black people the time of day.
If you think that discriminating against "behavior" is sometimes justified anonymous, then let me see you speak for religious discrimination. After all, religion is a "behavior."
Well look who came up for air! Enjoying that gust of global warming that's bringing us close to 60 degrees in February, are you barryo?
Here's the link to the brief in support overturning the Proposition 8 vote filed by NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the California State Conference of the NAACP, the Equal Justice Society, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Their brief concludes:
We have won many victories in the fight to eradicate discrimination against historically disfavored minorities, but the struggle continues. This Court’s landmark rulings on the suspect nature of discrimination based on sexual orientation and the equal right of same-sex couples to marry affirmed the importance of protecting that fundamental right in the tradition of struggle.
The Court’s decision in these proceedings will affect the security of every member of a group defined by a suspect classification in the State of California. To hold that historically disfavored minorities can be deprived of their rights through the enactment of ballot initiatives like Proposition 8 would place all such minorities at risk. To avoid that result, this Court need do no more than hold that the discriminatory elimination of a fundamental right on a suspect basis is a revision of the California Constitution. That rule gives voice to the core principle of judicial review under the equal protection clause and affords the legal bulwark needed to prevent minority communities from being oppressed by simple majority vote. We respectfully urge this Court to grant the relief sought in the Writ Petitions.
"If you think that discriminating against "behavior" is sometimes justified anonymous, then let me see you speak for religious discrimination. After all, religion is a "behavior.""
Well, it's a set of beliefs but close enough.
Why can't you discriminate against someone based on what they believe?
Let's say someone believed property is theft. Should a bank be banned from discriminating against them in hiring tellers?
So what behavior do you think should be discriminated against?
I didn't said any should.
I said it's alright if people want to discriminate based on behavior.
I think there's a difference between what should be normative and what should be permissible.
Do you disagree?
Left-handedness is not the norm. Should right-handedness, the norm, then become the only permissible way to be? Should we discriminate against lefties because they do not meet the norm?
Again, you're using the term "should", implying that there are no flexibilities of acceptable behavior and attitudes.
Handedness and sexual preference are not analogous, btw, but we've had that discussion enough before.
Actually it's an excellent analogy.
Oh brother barryo,
Handedness and sexual preference are perfectly analogous, btw, because they both involve behaviors.
Everybody uses their hands, well almost everybody. Lefties differ from righties only by which hand they use.
Everybody loves, well almost everybody. Gays differ from straights only by which gender they love.
Again, you're using the term "should", implying that there are no flexibilities of acceptable behavior and attitudes.
It seems to me the first use of the term "should" on this thread was you, barryo:
"Let's say someone believed property is theft. Should a bank be banned from discriminating against them in hiring tellers?"
and then it was you again, with my personal favorite, using the term "should":
"I didn't said any should.
I said it's alright if people want to discriminate based on behavior.
I think there's a difference between what should be normative and what should be permissible.
Do you disagree?"
Uh, that was you, barryo, implying that there are no flexibilities of acceptable behavior and attitudes.
I would think that what are considered to be "norms" and "permissible" would change from culture to culture, and I would expect that one culture's norm, could be another culture's exception. I seem to recall Jim putting up a post one time about visiting a land where blood was consumed as a food, which, due to cultural differences, I would imagine most Americans would find revolting. Does that mean we have the right to discriminate against blood eaters in America?
I agree with anonymous in theory that there are behaviors against which we should, or we should be permitted, to discriminate. In theory, I agree. His application in this case is erroneous on two aspects. He asserts that sexual orientation and gender identity are behaviors, when they are in fact biological traits, and he claims that non-majority SO and GI are anti-social.
Despite his illusions about his conversational effectiveness, he succeeds in convincing no one and in "scoring" no points. Instead, all he shows us is that he does not lgbt people, which we knew already.
This becomes repetitive. Anonymous does like queers, he doesn't like liberals, he doesn't like Obama, etc. Again, we know this already.
I vote for trading in our Anonymous for a new model.
A typo: I intended to say "anonymous doesn't like queer people." Oops. My students will tell you that one should anticipate at least one typo in each thing I produce.
rrjr
Post a Comment
<< Home