The Obama Project@WindonWater.net

Got this in email today:

Gail Collins opines in the NYT (this is three days late, unfortunately, but I still love it!)

We have been through all this before. Candidates who promise to bring everybody together are talking about meeting in the middle. The only people who think Barack Obama is a radical are you and Joe the Plumber.

Thanks, Gail!

QT

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/even_more_prop_8.php

One guess at what group feels they were robbed of “meaningful gender identities,” and thus likely long for them with a much greater intensity than the rest of the populace. It’s quite likely that the same impulse that would attract men by the hundreds of thousands of men to the Million Man March–the sense that something had been lost–is the same impulse them that would lead them to reject an expansion, and to their mind, a redefinition of marriage.

A very good point. Another: the feeling that black people’s marriages are persistently under attack. A clinging to traditional marriage as a cure for some of the ills that affect black people is a characteristic of black America that is under-appreciated.

This is from Richard Ford’s article that Ta-Nehisi is quoting:

After all, traditional marriage isn’t just analogous to sex discrimination—it is sex discrimination: Only men may marry women, and only women may marry men. Same-sex marriage would transform an institution that currently defines two distinctive sex roles—husband and wife—by replacing those different halves with one sex-neutral role—spouse. Sure, we could call two married men “husbands” and two married women “wives,” but the specific role for each sex that now defines marriage would be lost. Widespread opposition to same-sex marriage might reflect a desire to hang on to these distinctive sex roles rather than vicious anti-gay bigotry. By wistfully invoking the analogy to racism, same-sex marriage proponents risk misreading a large (and potentially movable) group of voters who care about sex difference more than about sexual orientation.

After all, many opponents of same-sex marriage don’t oppose gay rights across the board. In California, same-sex couples enjoy significant civil rights protections and legal status as domestic partners, and voters have shown no interest in changing that. National polls show that overwhelming majorities support employment-based gay rights, including equal access to careers in the military, and same-sex civil unions. It’s only when it comes to marriage—the word, with its religious as well as civic connotations—that pro-gay sentiment dwindles: Recent polls show that only 30 percent to 36 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage. It’s this finding, of course, that the results of last week’s elections echo.

The sharp differences in the polling numbers, depending on whether the question is marriage as opposed to almost any other gay rights issue, suggest that opposition to same-sex marriage isn’t simply the 21st century’s form of racism. After all, whites who opposed racial miscegenation in the Jim Crow South didn’t support other civil rights for blacks or civil unions for mixed-race couples. In fact anti-miscegenation laws worked hand-in-glove with laws prohibiting sex outside of marriage and intimate cohabitation of unmarried adults to effectively outlaw interracial intimacy altogether. When Mildred Loving, who was black, and Richard Loving, who was white, successfully challenged Virginia’s law barring interracial marriage, they were not just fighting for social acceptance and hospital visitation rights. They were fighting a jail sentence, suspended on the condition that they leave the Virginia and never return together: effective banishment from the state. Anti-miscegenation laws were designed to prevent intimate racial mixing of any kind; by contrast, many of the people who voted to ban same-sex marriage are apparently supportive of same-sex intimacy—provided you don’t call it marriage.

Coates is not overwhelmingly persuaded, but I quoted more than he did because I think there’s a “there” there.

QT

Are there some things that just make you smile? I smile at things sometimes - just because they make me happy. I can be moody as all heck, but the upside of that is that I’m very easily made happy.

Google Earth is one of those things. Its sorta like flying - which I only sometimes get to do (usually when my boss is paying for it), only better, because you can get so much closer to the ground.

Google Earth announced that they are providing tours of Ancient Rome in 3D. Which is just way beyond neat.

QT

The purpose of this blog is to avoid partisan politics but to talk about this time - the effect of the Obama candidacy on our country. I’ve focused mainly on race, though I’d hoped to get into discussion of gender (Sarah Palin helped me focus there a bit) and the wider discussion of culture - proposition 8 brought out a culture discussion, but I also hoped to talk a little bit about some of the right in front of our face happenings - like when Obama brought the house down doing his brush his shoulders bit. What a moment!

The Republican Party is having a bit of an identity crisis as a result of the Obama and Palin candidacies. Sarah Palin rallied the religious conservative base of the Republican party while wholly alienating the conservative “elite.” Given a choice, I’d choose that “conservative elite” - education and thoughtfulness deserve to be not only acceptable, but preferred qualities. Barack Obama exemplifies both, which in the long run thrilled his supporters (more on this later!). But the landslide victory of Obama over McCain was partially the result of African Americans and Latino voters going overwhelmingly for Obama. Combine that with an overwhelming youth vote favoring Obama, including a good chunk of evangelical youth, and you can see the problem the republican party is having - demographically they are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The internal debate on this very issue has begun - with Gov. Michael Steele, one of the most prominant African-Americans in the Republican party - stepping up to run for the chairmanship of the party. And here is a debate between Pat Buchanan and a republican strategist - who happens to be African American:

QT

Found this online.

What is it to me that homosexuals have or do not have the right to marry? When most marriages only have a 50-50 chance of surviving - a number driven up by the 75% failure rate of black marriages, why would I want to deny anyone else the chance to get it right?

I’m answering this question personally, because Keith Olbermann’s “Special Comment” was addressed personally, and to not take personal ownership of the issue seems a cop out, unfair, and unjust to those who are sincerely asking. Here is his special comment:

I take it Mr. Olbermann is not a religious man. If he were, he could not use some of the words he used. A religious person doesn’t start from the point of view of “no matter what the text says, my heart says different.” A religious person agonizes over that conflict, and tries to find a way to live within the constraints given. A religious person recognizes in him or herself any number of conflicts - of ways that they fall short of the text they strive to follow. A religious person turns continually to the God of their understanding for both forgiveness for their shortcomings, and understanding of why some things are required of them. A religious person turns often to God and says “that seems capricious… why did that have to happen?” And a religious person considers that ongoing struggle, argument, fight, and reconciliation - to be the substance of faith.

Because that is the way of religious life, the appeal to conscience is destined to fail. Every time someone accuses a religious person of hypocrisy, or sneers at a religion just because it says something contrary to what other people believe, they are reinforcing the behavior they hope to change. Those who are faithful expect the sneers, and those who are faithful expect the agony. Those who are faithful can honestly look at what is hypocritical in themselves, and try to make good - but making good doesn’t come by dropping their faith - it comes by clinging more to it. Whenever you ask me, “How can a loving God reject the love of homosexuals?” I ask God. (In fact,I don’t believe that God rejects the love of homosexuals - that’s a strawman argument. But I’m answering as if I did.) I don’t decide, unilaterally, that God is wrong, and I am right, or that the God of my understanding is wrong and the God of someone else’s understanding is right. That way of thinking - of changing what we believe when it is no longer convenient to believe it - is the fundamental definition of hypocrisy.

My understanding of homosexuality has evolved. I don’t believe homosexuality is a symptom of sin. I don’t hate homosexuals. And I don’t personally believe that homosexuals getting married have anything to do with me, nor do I believe it affects me in any way. But - if you ask me should they do it, I’m still likely to say “No.” I will say it because I’ve belonged, in my lifetime, to three different religions, none of which embraced gay marriage.

I THINK I would have voted “No” on Proposition 8, had that task fallen to me. I think I would have, because the supreme court already said that the right existed. But I’m not judging those who voted “yes” because I was not in their climate - I was not subject to the argument day and night - I’m not sure if everyone would automatically understand their duty to vote on the issue as a separation of church and state issue - their obligation to reserve their personal judgment in favor of voting for a civil law.

So - what does this mean? Ultimately, it means we need to find a way to articulate, loudly, clearly, that we are talking about a civil issue. We need to find ministers and other religious leaders who can authoritatively say “this is a separation of church and state” issue. We need to vote on what our conscience CAN vote on.

Having said that… I note that the landmark changes to people’s fundamental understanding of the law required intervention by the Supreme Court, and a war. Blacks did not get the right to marry, nor the right to intermarry by plebiscite. Perhaps there is something to be learned here. I would sign on for a fight all the way to the Supreme Court to make civil unions the law of the land, and marriage the domain of religious institutions to administer as they will. I would join on such a fight, wholeheartedly.

QT

One thing I heard some liberal commentators say, as to why Proposition 8 would fail, was that it was much harder to contemplate taking rights away than it was to contemplate conferring new ones. The argument was that as people went to the polls, they would find it hard to take away rights.

I remember finding that argument less than persuasive, but not thinking about it much, being neither gay, nor a Californian. In retrospect, how do you square that idea against a vast number of people who don’t believe that the right to “gay marriage” exists in the first place? Asked to vote should the right be taken away - the answer isn’t “obviously no” because it is far from “obvious” that the right existed in the first place.

Indeed - by going to proposition - the inherent statement is - the right isn’t actually a right. The Supreme Court’s judgment is rendered on the law as written, but the question is “is the law written right?” And the people of California said “no… it’s not. It needs to be better written to make clear that there is no such right as “gay marriage”.” Well - we can argue about that, and I guess we will, but I just wanted to go on record about the dubious thinking - the utter failure of those supporting the gay marriage issue of understanding those who would vote against it.

QT

One of the interesting outcomes of the Obama victory is the building of a coalition of religious people from diverse backgrounds. Particularly, African Americans and the Hispanic community showed up in force for Obama. In California, this had an effect that I’ll call “adverse” - Obama came out against Proposition 8 - the rescinding of the right of homosexuals to marry in the state of California, but his coalition voted in favor of the proposition.

I promised that I would discuss this topic after the election - a promise that lead to absolute silence on my blog. Talking about homosexuality and the black community seems a bit beyond my abilities - I am atypical in my beliefs and practices. Still - as one voice in the black community, and as one voice largely sympathetic to those who voted FOR Proposition 8 (though I don’t know that I would have), I’m going to do my best.

I’ll be back. But for now I want to share some of the thinking I’ve already done on the subject. On Ex Isle, I posted a lengthy exploration of the issue when it first erupted due to the Donnie McClurkin flap early in the primaries. For any who want to read that discussion (it is long, but interesting) here it is: http://www.exisle.net/mb/index.php?s=&showtopic=49441&view=findpost&p=1055991. It is likely that I will retread old ground here, but I’ll try to do it more succinctly, and more specifically to the topic of gay marriage.

The other thing I want to do is share this video of the late Rev. James Cleveland. To say he was a giant of gospel music would be like saying that the Grand Canyon is a big ditch. I remember when hearing that he had died of AIDS contracted from his gay lover, being shocked, offended, and nearly boycotting James Cleveland. It took years before I could reconcile my feelings about that. But in the end, he remains beloved. Whatever his struggles, whatever his ups and downs - he contributed not only immensely to the world of Gospel, but to my own life. His music always spoke to me when I needed a reminder that God was bigger than anything I might be going through.