Wattree's picture

    Dr. Boyce Watkins on Gay Rights

    "If gay is the new black, then black must have been the old gay . . . I don't really know what that means either . . . I support gay marriage, but it's mainly because I just don't care one way or the other."

    The author of the enlightened quotation above is Dr. Boyce Watkins of Syracuse University. He presents himself as a public intellectual and a dedicated civil rights advocate. He’s also the driving force behind "Your Black World," a popular website that seeks to keep Black people politically enlightened. Dr. Watkins goes on to say the following:
    .
    "I wonder what it means to simply say that everyone deserves civil rights, and to use that as a blanket justification for gay marriage. So, if I wanted to marry my sister and someone said I couldn't, would that be a violation of my civil rights? I support gay marriage, but it's mainly because I just don't care one way or the other. But if I were deeply religious and considered marriage to be a spiritual union solely designed to be between a man and a woman, I might be offended by someone asking me to support the notion of same sex marriage. Civil rights doesn't mean that every person can do whatever they want, whenever they want with whomever they want. If that were the case, then a mother could decide to terminate her child's life after the baby was born....after all, it's her baby, right[?]"
    .
    So-called public ‘intellectuals’ of Dr. Watkins’ ilk never cease to amaze me. I can’t help but wonder how he could possibly have obtained a PhD without ever learning to think? Shouldn’t we be able to expect a PhD, at the very least, to have the intellect to formulate an argument that’s not filled totally irrelevant non sequiturs? Equal civil rights mean that gays deserve the right to marry the one that they love just like straight people. But his response implies that gays are asking for MORE rights than straight people. Therefore, Watkins' response would only be valid if gays were demanding the right to marry their sisters.
    .
    So in response to his question, yes, it would be a violation of his civil rights if he wasn’t allowed to marry his sister, but only if others WERE allowed to marry their sisters. The fact that this guy has a Phd and can’t see that the issue of equal rights under the law and his right to marry his sister are far from analogous is a serious indictment against our educational system - after all, he is charged with the responsibility of educating others. But much more important, it’s also clear evidence of the dire need of Americans to become independent and self-sufficient thinkers.
    .
    Again, Dr. Watkins presents himself as a public intellectual and a fierce advocate of civil rights, yet, when it comes to the civil rights of gays he’s using the very same kind of irrational argument that racists used to try to block Black civil rights legislation of the past. They’d say things like, "Okay, if we allow a change in the law to allow White people to marry Black people, what’s to stop us from passing laws in the future saying that people should have the right to marry their dogs?"
    .
    Both are equally stupid analogies, and although I’ve heard Watkins say outrageous things in the past, for some reason I’m am totally shocked to hear him say something as dumb as this, not only because it's a ridiculous attempt at syllogistic logic - "All dogs have fleas, and my cat has fleas, therefore, my cat is a dog"- but it is equally shocking to see that he fails to recognize the racist history of such a stupid argument.
    .
    But what his attitude clearly illustrates more than anything else is that Black people are the product of the very same racist and socially bigoted environment as White people, and as a result, we're just as racist and socially bigoted toward other Blacks and minority groups as any racist Hillbilly. That accounts for much of the flak that Obama is getting from some of Dr. Watkins’ Black colleagues.
    .
    While many of these so-called Black "intellectuals" try to cloak their hostility toward President Obama in the language of Black activism, they’re actually upset with Obama for the very same reason that many conservative Republicans are - they consider him ‘Uppity.’ What they’re actually saying is, "Who does this spook think he is, struttin’ around like he thinks he has as much sense as White folks? He’s just another ignorant nigga, just like me." So in short, it’s self-hatred.
    .
    For this reason, I’ve dropped all pretense of journalistic detachment on this issue, and I’ve gone on a single-minded mission against these people, as should every journalist, but Black journalists, in particular. We need to recognize that some things are much more important than some arbitrary rule of journalism about not getting personally involved in a story. White journalists routinely recognize that fact every time this country goes to war, and the fact is, the Black community is now literally in a state of war. It’s currently being besieged by a group of Black, self-serving demagogues that constitute a severe threat to its survival, and we shouldn’t just sit back and let it happen, any more than we would sit back and simply chronicle the events attendant to a drowning child.
    .
    In this case, Watkins, this so-called Black "intellectual," has betrayed an attitude toward gay minorities that parallels that of a member of the Tea Party. That should be a call to arms to all Journalists in the Black community who feel a vested interested in the principle of equal rights under the law. At the very least we must start alerting the community of the importance of Black people to start thinking for themselves, instead of relying on self-professed intellectuals to help them formulate their view of reality.
    .
    The Black community needs to understand that they should NEVER give anyone else’s ability to think priority over our own, regardless to the hype that precedes the person, or the academic credentials that supposedly attests to the person’s ability to think. Because in many cases, as we saw in the 2000 election that brought George Bush into our lives, the credentials of many ‘intellectuals’ only attest to the fact that they’ve spent so much time learning to regurgitate the thoughts of dead White folks that they’ve never taken the time to learn to think for themselves.
    .
    Thus, Black people should always seek to educate themselves, because that’s the only education that we can, unfailingly, depend upon.
    .

    RELATED ARTICLES
    .
     

    Eric L. Wattree
    Http://wattree.blogspot.com
    [email protected]

     
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

    Comments

    I don't know why you act like anyone who might not agree with you or might formulate an issue different hasn't "learned how to think". Do you need to toss this in with every post?

    And then you call them "ignorant niggas" and throw in the Uncle Tom speak? Pretty disgusting.

    Someone can support civil rights without affirmative action.

    Someone can support LBG rights without the T.

    Someone can differentiate between ethnic issues and sexual issues.

    The question of marriage, unlike race, is a slippery slope - there is no obvious endpoint.

    Once upon a time, Catholics marrying Protestants was taboo. Christians marrying Muslims is still sometimes controversial. We may be starting to accept gays marrying, but we've changed our attitude towards 13-year-olds in arranged marriages. If a man can marry a man, why can't I marry two women I love? Why can't I marry my sister? Why can't I marry my underage sister. Or my underage son? Or a rabbit? Or a rock? Or a photon?

    It's a parlor game that can go forever - not too tough to realize? Yes, there are some sensible places to end the game, but it's not as strictly defined as "all people should have the same right to life, liberty and happiness, whatever their ethnic group or religion". 

    Someone whose religion is "cannibal" can have the same rights as everyone else, but we don't add a special exemption for eating people. But then, Americans think eating horse and rabbit and snails is weird, while Europeans have no compunction, and some Asians might have no problem with dog - which might provoke hysteria and legal problems in some US locales.

    Apathy towards gay marriage rights is better than antipathy, which has been the rule for religious and non-religous alike.

    Acceptance of gay marriage can follow the same reasonable path that civil rights took - being respectable and respectful, convincing, thorough, rational, persuasive, non-hysterical, brave, steadfast.

    Insulting everyone who doesn't believe as you is a loser strategy.


    Peracles,

    First you asked why I challenge person's ability to think just because they disagree with my point of view.  Then you go one to say the following:

    "If a man can marry a man, why can't I marry two women I love? Why can't I marry my sister? Why can't I marry my underage sister. Or my underage son? Or a rabbit? Or a rock? Or a photon?"

    In making the above statement you answered your own question. You're comparing apples to oranges. I didn't challenged Watkin's ability to think simply because he disagreed with me. I challenged his ability to think because he made the very same logical flaw that you just did. 

    Gay's are not asking for additional rights, as your questions suggests; they're asking for EQUAL rights. After all, no one can marry their son or daughter, or a rabbit. But YOU do have the right to marry the one you love, as should they - and, without getting YOUR approval.

    Thus, your thinking is flawed. It would only be valid if they were demanding the right to marry a rabbit.

     

     

     


    Rabbits are not asking for additional rights, only EQUAL rights. Here I'm leading you down the rabbit hole - but don't worry, we're all virgins in some areas.

    Marriage has been traditionally between man and women. Gays are asking to extend the definition to 2 men or 2 women. Polygamists/polyamorists would be asking to extend it to more than 2 partners - a right during many periods of human history, now frowned upon.

    The restrictions on familial marriage are somewhat arbitrary. Are 2nd cousins okay? 1st cousins? Half-brothers? Was their something wrong with Woody Allen marrying his adopted daughter (no genetic relation). What makes the marriage age of 18 now proper, vs. 16 in years gone by or younger (15? 13? arranged marriages at 6 or 8?)

    Miscegenation laws obviously restricted marriage and reproducing based on race - a right or redefinition of marriage? and it wasn't long ago that marrying a Catholic in the south meant to be outcast.

    Nikola Tesla, a brilliant man, had a kind of fetish and love towards pigeons. Bestiality (sexual encounters with animals) is a common enough phenomenon. At least in this case, there's a clear distinction of species when restricting marriage or sexual relations between humans and other species.

    You challenge their ability to think because you're either not very creative in applying logic, or it's a rhetorical tool where all your analogies are apples-to-apples and theirs are apples-to-oranges, and presto-magico, you can disappear their argument.

    In either case, you do it in a frequently insulting manner. Including to Sitting Bull / all native Americans below.


    I see the root of his problem here:

    "Civil rights doesn't mean that every person can do whatever they want, whenever they want with whomever they want."

    Okay, it doesn't.  But that is the ideal.  So, when we do tell an individual that they cannot do what they want, when and with whomever, we should have damned good reasons.  Watkins at least sees that there is no damned good reason to oppose same sex marriages.

    I tend to think that a lot of our prohibitions don't pass the "damned good reasons," test.  But, that's why we have arguments.  In my view, we our goal should be to establish a society where people can do whatever, whereever and with whomever the in most every case.  Any time we clear the way for somebody, it's a civil rights victory.


    Wattree. I dislike the way you attack your preferred hate objects. I have no pre-existing views about Boyce Watkins one way or another, but I would argue that, at a minimum, you need to be fair to these guys. 

    For starters, there's no link provided to his words. And I couldn't find any column where he said those things. Because, as it turns out, it's to a quickie 5 minute video he did. Which, for those interested, is here:

    http://www.yourblackworld.net/2012/05/black-news/dr-boyce-has-gay-inconv...

    When you listen, you get to hear what he says, and a bit of context begins to appear. On your side of the argument, I'd say, yes, Watkins doesn't have a maximum understanding of the gay marriage issue, and his world probably doesn't include a whole helluva lot of gays in it. 

    But you know what his little video was also about? It was about him being angry that politicians and media people and movement leaders were completely ignoring the issue of mass black incarceration and the destruction of black families and communities being caused by that.

    He argues that while gay families are affected by the fact that full marriage was denied to them, that millions of black fathers, husbands, sons, brothers, co-workers and fellow students were in prison, and that millions of families were thus being heavily affected, and their communities torn apart by a whole series of consequences which follow. 

    That is, to make it short and blunt, that more people were being more heavily damaged by this other, ignored, issue - black incarceration - than by gay marriage.

    So, Point 1, you missed his context, and thus, distort what he's saying.

    Point 2, your riffs about thinking and PhD's and all that is, given what I've just outlined, a bit goofy. 

    Point 3, that thing you do, where you take some public figure or group you don't like and drop absolutely abusive anti-black terms into their mouths? You know, like black intellectuals who are opposed to Obama, where YOU put the anti-black hatred in their mouths, with them calling Obama a spook and an ignorant nigga? Well, all I can say is, they're not saying it. You are. 

    Repeat, you are. 

    You're making the words up. 

    Personally, I think it's way out of line. But I've come to see it's what you do. You run vendettas against those you hate. And state that you do with pride. You quote them without links, minus context. You make up hateful comments and stick them in their mouths. 

    And you get away with it. 

     


    This:

    "He argues that while gay families are affected by the fact that full marriage was denied to them, that millions of black fathers, husbands, sons, brothers, co-workers and fellow students were in prison, and that millions of families were thus being heavily affected, and their communities torn apart by a whole series of consequences which follow."

    ...is just such a weird argument to make.  It's not like one injustice has to do with the other.  Is the argument that the same sex marriage issue has sucked all of the air out of the room?

    If Obama wanted to do something about over-incarceration in America, he's certainly not being stopped by same sex marriage advocates.  Obama could very easily have an immediate effect just by backing off the drug war.  He wouldn't even have to change any laws.  He could just redirect resources.  The problem is that Obama doesn't want to do anything about this issue because he thinks that what's criminal and not in America is... just fine and dandy.

    Which is a decent reason to be mad at the guy.  It just has nothing to do with same sex marriage.


    I'm sure Q can answer for himself. But I think you're casting the worst possible light on Q's and Boyce Watkins' point. It's not that the Democrats should be dealing with the one rather than the other. It is about a deep and persistent imbalance in the Democratic coalition.

    I'm chiming in just because it touches on something I've tried to bring up - to little avail - before, and that bloggers like Bernstein and Thoma have brought up regarding Martin Gilens research at Princeton.

    http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/69/5/778.full.pdf

    Roughly, the Democratic party has a platform covering progressive economic issues (welfare programs, poverty, labor, etc) as well as progressive social issues (gay and reproductive rights). But they are terrible at advancing the former and much better on the latter, because the big money pushes the latter, and doesn't care about the former. Again and again: think the senate deal in 2010 where tax hikes were dropped but DADT was repealed, or now Obama's fund-raising off the gay marriage pronouncements while backing Simpson-Bowles style entitlement reform and tax cuts for the affluent. The dems continually move right on economic issues while moving left on these social issues. And I think it's a worrying trend that is worth highlighting.

    If every time someone highlights it, you cast it in the light of 'oh, you hates the gayz...?', well of course it is never going to be much of a constructive conversation. You're just shutting the door on that conversation.

    Just my two cents.

    /Obey


    I think it sounds more like he discussing priorities.  The one thing all injustices have in common is that they require our time and resources and energy in order to address them.  So if one takes the opportunity cost perspective, then time, resources, and energy spent battling one injustice is time, resources, and energy that cannot be spent battling another. 

    When speaking to a group of people about taking action, sometimes it is necessary to say one injustice is not as important as another in the here-and-now.  Sometimes not. Of course, in any call to a particular action, there is implied statement of placing this action above other possible actions.

    Of course, one of the reasons why it is so difficult to get progress on a host of issues is that there are a host of issues who have activists and advocates making calls to action for their particular issue.  So many brush fires, so little time.


    I think one of Q's points on Watkins was, if someone's bleeding to death and someone's leg is broken, you treat the gushing artery first.

    While it's a shame to be denied the right to marry, it's worse to be incarcerated by the millions.


    It's not a "shame to be denied the right to marry," it's a full blown equal protection issue.  if you just lump it in with, "it's a shame," then there will always be some cause more important than it.


    Well, considering the stop and frisk described here:

    http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/05/14/nypd-stopped-351739-people-last-year-for-furtive-movements/

    I'm not too concerned whether I've understated an equal protection issue. For one, I was just describing what I thought Watkins was trying to say.

    But I don't expect non-gay blacks to be too worried about gays tying the knot when blacks are frequently just struggling for survival. Call them selfish...

     


    I'm not calling anybody selfish.  I'm saying that it's unhelpful to frame the issues in this manner.  Should we end Stop and Frisk in New York?  Of course.  Should we end the drug war?  Yes.  Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?  Yes.  Is one issue more important than the other?  It depends on who you are.  But they're not exclusive.

    I just don't think it's helpful for people to say, "pay attention to this, not that."  Ultimately, you're just burning your potential allies.


    But from the perspective of someone who is associated with a particular non-profit with a particular agenda, there is a competition out there for donors and such.  Individuals in general do not write 50 or 60 checks to all the causes they believe in, or volunteer in 50 or 60 organizations.  They tend to pick one, two, or three.  And if you're looking at the sustainability of your organization (i.e. being able to pay the bills) or cause, then one finds oneself making the case "pay attention to early childhood education, not groundwater pollution," or "pay attention to groundwater pollution, not gay marriage." 


    I think on this I largely agree with Trope (shock! alarm!) and Peracles. There is a limited space for policy discussion, a limited media hole, limited time with the public to communicate. Which means that, absolutely, one issue and its discussion and progress affects another. Anybody in an NGO knows this. 

    Sometimes however, rather than being a purely competing issue, an issue like gay marriage can HELP an issue like black incarceration. It can do so by generating momentum, creating new allies, raising a politician's polling support, etc. 

    For me, over the last few years - and speaking as a pure "must get votes" political carnivore - my view on gay marriage has been that politicians should do it, get it done, take any perceived "hit" early in the term, and then, come election time, run on the fact that the sky hasn't fallen, and know that a majority will probably be with them. But don't waste a lot of time on extended jawing about it. Just bloody well do it. And I think if Obama had done it that way, he'd be sitting in a happier chair. 

    Instead, I'm not sure the reality on the ground hasn't played out more the way the angry Watkins is describing. Namely, that black incarceration has gotten very little Presidential, media and public attention. And I suspect there are going to be more and more ripples of anger moving out through the black community about this. Not so much a direct response to gay marriage, but more, a bit of displaced anger at Obama, coming out through this means.

    I mean, it boggles my mind, that hundreds of thousands could be imprisoned, in ways which defy connection to anything resembling "justice," their families and businesses and communities and schools and workplaces blown to hell in the process, and sweet f*ck all having been said or done about it. And a black President in office. At times it reminds me of being in South Africa circa 1985, and then having to imagine a Mandela coming in and.... not doing much about it.

    Now, does gay marriage actually have much of anything to do with that lack of attention? Not so much. Other than absorbing some of the media and political elites time, and some of the oxygen. Not critical amounts, but... a bit.

    But if you listen, Watkins way of putting this is to say that he wants to see civil rights leaders marching for black incarceration issues. He wants to see Obama and Cabinet take stands and speak out and act on black incarceration just as diligently as for gay marriage. I get the fact that he's angry. I'd be angry too. Because... they haven't. From my observations, they've been very weak on black issues such as this. 

    So, if I was a black man, and I saw the praise being heaped on Obama for his actions... in gay marriage.... and the praise he received for the Nobel Peace Prize.... and then I saw what he'd failed to do for blacks.... mmmmm, yeah. I'd probably be angry. A black President who didn't dare touch the issue of mass incarceration on blacks, but who somehow went soul-searching and found he could support gay marriage? Gee, thanks Pres.

    Should this anger come out at gays? Nope. Are gays keeping blacks in prison? Nope. Can I understand why this civil rights victory might raise my temperature a bit? Yup.

     


    What's funny here is that it took years to get Obama to speak out on same sex marriage, even as most of the party elites assumed that he was secretly in the pro-equal rights camp.  Obama really noticed that his silence wasn't paying off when some big fundraisers closed their wallets.

    Watkins knows how the game is played.  He needs to get some big donors to start bringing the issue up with the president and he needs those donors to show that they will make decisions based on promises and results.

    Cynical, yes.  But Obama was pressured into doing the right thing here.  To argue that he misplaced his priorities kind of misses the essential point -- he didn't place his priorities.


    Yup, there's a whole of people that are gonna come to recognize, in the coming months and years, that the ones who make gains are the ones who act up, hit the streets, withhold money and generally make a nuisance of themselves. 

    Shame that tens of millions of Democrats wasted 4 years waiting on and making excuses for this joker.


    Too bad they don't have bulging wallets. It's not enough to vote - you gotta fund-raise to be anyone. Show 'Bama some bling.


    Q, I agree that Wattree distorted Watkin's argument and put words in his mouth, but I don't think you got it right either. Watkins never said that "more people were being more heavily damaged" by black incarceration than by gay marriage.

    He said: "It doesn't affect my life. It probably doesn't affect your life." Then he demanded a "quid pro quo," arguing that for black people to give up their long-held religious beliefs about homosexuality, they should be compensated by action on black incarceration. As if there were any ambiguity, he added, "Don't just ask us to stand up to the plate for other people. Other people need to stand up to the plate for us."

    This of course, is bullshit. Nobody asked Watkins or the black community to step up to any plate. Heck, Obama hasn't even taken any action on gay marriage himself.

    Moreover, it's a piss-poor rationale for pursuing civil rights. Suppose I did a video blog belittling the issue of black incarceration with the argument, "It doesn't affect my life. It probably doesn't affect your life." Or suppose that I argued that if my people were to give up their long held views that black people are violent criminals, then they should get some kind of quid quo pro.

    You do have to wonder why Watkins chose this opportunity--catalyzed by a facebook status update--to spout such crap.


    Just to be clear, I'm not saying this stuff - Watkins is. Though I think I understand his argument. 

    Just rewind to 4:00, G, and I think you'll see him say roughly what I said as a shorthand. He is very clearly saying that more people in the black community are affected by incarceration than by gay marriage. He says a few are gay and it's directly important to you. But most of you listening have someone who is incarcerated. And he clearly also considers this more important, as when he says it's the equivalent of being "a prisoner of war."

     


    Yeah, I understand. This is just semantics about Watkins' message, though it bears on Wattree's cred.

    I think that the key phrase, which wasn't in your first comment, is "in the black community." With that addition, I agree with your interpretation. Watkins is not saying that incarceration is more important than gay marriage--though I'm sure he would agree with that statement--he's saying incarceration is more important to the black community. Indeed, I think he's making the stronger point: gay marriage is not important to the black community, period (except for a few folks who might happen to know gay people).

    But that key phrase represents all that is wrong with his message. Any given civil rights advance will affect some groups more than others, but its moral impact does not depend on how many people you know who are affected. If you live in a 100 percent white town in Maine, it does not absolve you of the responsibility to support blacks' civil rights in Mississippi.

    Watkins might have delivered a different message with the same theme. He might have said, "This is a great day for gay rights, but there are so many other pressing civil rights issues that remain unresolved." But he didn't. He delivered a narrow, mean-spirited rant about how gay marriage didn't affect him or his listeners and was therefore irrelevant compared to other issues.


    I hear what you're saying, but try this.

    Imagine if hundreds of thousands of gays were imprisoned for some type of non-violent offense, committed by consenting adults. (It could be sexual, just make it a rough equivalent of what the drug laws have done to the black community.) Then imagine if they were incarcerated for years, and in many cases, for life. Imagine if the courts were hellaciously unfair. And the politicians frothing to increase prison terms for this crime.

    And then... imagine what would happen to gay lovers on the outside, to gay businesses, gay media voices, children of gay couples, family members, etc., as this nightmare unfolded.

    Line that all up, and then say that, in addition, gay couples, while they could live together, have civil unions and so on, couldn't be formally married in the eyes of the state. 

    Now, in terms of action and priorities for action, which one do you think the gay community would rank highest? 

    Imagine both punishments being levied on any group - Jews, or gays or the Irish or blacks (or - gasp - Canadians) - and I think you'd find most groups would rank the long-term imprisonment of large numbers of their members as the higher priority. 

    And in many ways, this is a repeat or near-parallel of some of the conditions under slavery, right? So let's imagine both punishments were presently being levied on black communities. Now, imagine if a black President came in, and got the marriage laws changed, and if black civil rights leaders celebrated it, and the media covered it big-time, and yet.... almost nothing changed, and almost nothing was even said, about the hundreds of thousands in prison.

    Would you still be angry? Would you have that right? Especially if you happened to live in a world where your own family and friends were still in prison? (Which I think it's safe to say, is the situation Boyce Watkins is in.) 

    Mean-spirited? Narrow? I guess. I'd say he probably has his priorities straight, but... the fact that he begrudges the gay community its gains... and takes his anger at the lack of action on black issues and dumps it on gays... that makes him a bit of an asshole. All I'd say in his defence is, I get his anger at the inaction. Beyond that, he should be apologizing.


    Thanks Q, I appreciate your point. We're not far apart on this.


    I guess one aspect is, "what has the gay community done to persuade the black community this is important?" Just a "gay civil rights is the same as black civil rights" doesn't do it. Sometimes there's quid pro quo, brothers-in-arms, sometimes there's just finding the right words, the right anecdote.

    Many blacks are religious and in that religion, homosexuality is wrong. Blacks may not wear hatred towards gays on their sleeves, but for some, tolerating gay marriage is a bridge too far. How to convince, how to get acceptance if not approval?

    It's a good lesson for numerous other fights - how to persuade people who are inherently against your cause, without an in-your-face scream-a-thon that benefits no one.


    Qnonymous,

    I don't know anything about the video you referenced. I quoted a remark that Watkins made on Facebook. And he quotation didn't require context.  He said what he said. How much context do you need when a guy who presents himself as a public intellectual and civil rights advocate says, "I support gay marriage, but it's mainly because I just don't care one way or the other," and then goes to equate gay marriage to his marrying his sister?

    And I don't hate Boyce Watkins.  I used to write for him, but as I told him at the time, while I felt that his heart was in the right place, so was Sitting Bull's, but he led his people over a cliff nevertheless.  So read my writings, it may seem like I hate Watkins, but that's not the case at all. It's just that I like the Black community more, and I feel that he's infecting them with grossly inefficient thinking, so I say so. 

    I'm a writer, so I would be remiss to give my feelings about any one individual priority over the people who depend on me to tell them the truth.

    http://wattree.blogspot.com/2008/07/journalists-first-responsibility_04.html


    I've always wondered what became of the Lakota. Thanks for sorting that out for me.


    Wow, take a heartless jab at Sitting Bull while you're at it. Yeah, he should have acquiesced, just let the government put his people on reservations, and put in some slot machines to draw tourists. Martin Luther King should have just accepted those shoe shining jobs - better some employment than none, no? With or without Little Big Horn the whites would have killed off the Indians, finished stealing their land breaking all agreements successively along the way, and made them irrelevant. But with Little Big Horn, they at least went out with a memorable fight for self-respect. Custer will forever be a symbol of cruel, foolish-head arrogance.

    The taboos against gay marriage are similar to taboos against incest / marrying your sister. Much backed by biblical lore, etc. And Quinn explained the don't care part - both because the black community has bigger fish to fry, and perhaps as a heterosexual he doesn't actually care (which emotional reaction could run the gamut from disgust to enthusiasm I suppose)


    If Watkins' argument is that we need to "prioritize" issues, his head will spin when "black" issues get shoved under the bus by Progressives who feel that the main issue is ending the war in Afghanistan, ending drone attacks and removing mercenaries from Iraq. The other thing to keep in mind is that there is no guarantee that ignoring the issue of Gay marriage means that efforts will be poor into issues of sentencing disparities in the courts, unemployment disparities, etc. The best thing that Gays can do is keep pushing their issues.

    Do I wish Gays would be more vocal about Trayvon Martin and other issues, Yes. Will that happen? No.Best to strike while the fire is hot. Generally the fire will only be the first baby step in a decades long battle to the finish line.

    All that has happened regarding same sex marriage is that Biden and Obama and some other Administration officials have said that they support Gay marriage. These are only statements. When Gay marriage comes to a vote it loses. Repeatedly. No real actual battle has been won.

    The most recent Black flashpoint was Trayvon Martin. Protest grew because there was a possibility that a murderer would not have to defend himself in court. Following vocal protest. A special prosecutor was appointed and if judge does not dismiss the case because of "Stand Your Ground" laws, the killer may go to trial. There may or may not be a conviction. Either way the law will still stand until the legislature alters the legislation. Issues of disparity in application f law and sentencing will still remain.

    The bottom line is that both Gays and Blacks have decades long battles to fight. Neither side has to wait for the other to "go first".


    I didn't listen to Watkins, but I don't think anything he says withholds one bit of support from gay marriage. But social security was the big deal in 2000. Gay marriage and war was a big deal in 2004. Electing a black man and the economy were big deals in 2008. This year there hasn't even been an issue - gay marriage just got thrown in because someone noticed it's awfully boring out there. Occupy Wall Street came and went, and drone strikes are boring, and we'll leave Afghanistan in a decade so why worry?

    Meanwhile, millions sit in jail or have had their lives destroyed. And it simply isn't an issue. It's mid-May before the election, and only Ron Paul even mentioned black incarceration this election cycle. No one has addressed screaming high black unemployment. The only mention of aid to the poor has been in how much we can cut it to put lazy people back to work.

    "The bottom line is that both Gays and Blacks have decades long battles to fight. Neither side has to wait for the other to "go first" - well, no - if gays get gay marriage with marriage benefits, they're pretty well finished. They're not being pulled over for "driving while gay", they're allowed in the military now and will mostly be accepted, there's limited discrimination against gays in the workforce, and it's only schoolyard bullying that really remains as a social hurdle, and that will change as being gay becomes more open and common. Plus adoption and being scout masters, I guess.


    The statement about Gays being done after Gay marriage is akin to saying Blacks were done after the Civil Rights Act or that women were done after Suffrage or Title IX. There is a great deal of inertia in making all citizens "equal" even after laws change. I expect that many Gays would tell you that there is still a large amount of discrimination to be addressed once Gay marriage is legal. Just Google gays and housing discrimination as just one example of things that will not be "done" in the private sector even after Gay marriage becomes law..


    RM,

    I completely agree. The most potent weapon of ultraconservative  ideologues is divide and conquer, and that's what's so amazingly myopic about Watkin's comments. He said that while he supports the right of gays to marry, he really didn't care one way or the other, and then went on to argue against it. That was insincere at best, and grossly hypocritical at worst. If he "really doesn't care" about the equal rights of ALL, he needs to get out of the advocacy business.


    Watkins notes the anger a Christian may feel about being asked to support an issue that is considered an abomination.AS a Christian, I think one of the challenges that one faces is questioning one's faith. "Am I following God's? path?', is a constant question. 

    Leviticus says that men who have sex with other men should be killed. Is this what God says or is this what some ancient Jewish scholars decreed? No one in mainstream Christianity takes the verse literally. Christians need to question their interpretation of the Bible. The Black Church will benefit from a discussion of this topic.

    Catholics are also assessing the Ryan budget. Is the plan Catholic or an abomination?

    Who knows where these religious discussions will lead. Perhaps Liberal Christians will deliver the Church out of the Conservative darkness.


    No black Christians are calling for stoning. Likely black Christians do "question their interpretation of the Bible". Which doesn't mean they will or should jump to the conclusion that gay marriage is now a-okay. Perhaps it's time for someone to make the effort to persuade the community, to provide some of the reasons rather than just wait for the time of black Christian re-assessment to blind them like Saul's light on the road.

    Should black Christians support pornography, just because pornography is allowed under the law? How would you get them to support others' rights to view it, even though it's an abomination to their religion? To many, homosexuality is akin to pornography or polygamy or pedophilia or other sexual taboos - not a civil rights issue.

    Though I don't think Watkins is pushing this - he just doesn't see it as high priority in his day. But then, some 5 million people got slaughtered in the Congo, and most of us woke up every day during the atrocity without one thought about it. Humans do prioritize. Badly.


    Would Jesus care about Gays getting married or worry more about the state of relationships between married (and unmarried) individuals? The Bible has been used to make women second class citizens and label Blacks as being under the never-ending curse of Ham. Reevaluation of the Christian position is a constant. Women were temptresses to be controlled by men. A battered wife was to demonstrate her faith by staying with an abusive husband. The Southern Baptists were fully supportive of Jim Crow.

    Yesterdays "abomination" of Black and female rights is today's virtue.

    Richard Land's view is that those who have should receive more. In essence, the poor deserve to be poor because they are lazy. Is that Jesus' position? Would Jesus find punishing the poor an abomination? That is the current Catholic debate against the Paul Ryan budget.

    Did Sodom get destroyed because of homosexual rapists or did the treatment of the poor play a larger role? Was the message about homosexuality in Leviticus or was the real topic under discussion male prostitution? These are discussions going on in some quarters of the Black Church. The debate will continue. Melissa Harris-Perry and Michael Eric Dyson, among others, have argued the other side of the Watkin's debate.

    The Church does reconsider it's position's and change does occur.


    The NYT has a story on how rapidly the opinions about Gays and marriage can change when the issues goes from the abstract to the personal.


    Here is a post by a Muslim quoting the Koran and it's  rejection of homosexuality. He objects to Obama's stance on Gay marriage. The responses to the post are still early, but many point out the lack of spiritual love in the interpretation. These discussions will continue.


    Change does not have to occur. "Thou shalt not kill" is still a fine commandment after all these years.

    But almost no American Christian has taken the food requirements from Leviticus seriously for the last 300 years.

    What Jesus would do, can't tell you. Being an atheist, I miss out on the kingdom of heaven ramifications and see only practical sides - may be missing the big picture.


    Change does not have to occur, but change in Church position has occurred. 

    ".....the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice"

    --Martin Luther King Jr.

    Obviously the arc needs the hands of humans to bend. If one is on the side of justice for Gays they will champion the challenges to bigoted religious orthodoxy. The challenge will  not be easy, but the fruits will be great. The Biblical basis of rejecting  homosexuals can be challenged. The moral basis for rejecting homophobia can be asserted.

    Of course there is always the option of doing nothing, hypothesizing that nothing will change within the church and then criticizing the church when nothing changes because no one took action.

     

     


    All things 'can' be done. So do it. Find a scripture-based argument for why anti-homosexuality canons should be dropped, see if anyone buys it.

    But in any case, the legal hurdles for homosexuals including marriage will be dropped long before racism & physical punishment & street mistreatment of blacks goes away.


    Are you arguing that physical punishment and street mistreatment of homosexuals will disappear?


    There is a crabs in a barrel thesis being proposed. If women make gains, Black women may benefit. If Gays make advances, Black Gays may benefit. Blacks got the vote before women got the vote. There were women who were property owners in the South before Blacks could own property. Who should have gone first in getting their rights established?

    The big picture is that different groups are fighting for rights that should not be in contention. Every group fights it's battle, forming coalitions when possible.


    There was a major debate re: Sojourner Truth's clan & blacks re: that very point. Women's suffrage was put off for 50 years or so.

    Don't buy the crabs theory even though it sounds pleasant. There's been a lot of progress for gays since Stonewall. Compared to the old days, street harassment of gays is a lot less. 

    But from Stop & Frisk to mass incarceration on drug laws, it's obvious blacks haven't enjoyed the same progress, aside from economically in the 90's.

    Aside from the hype, "all boats rise" is a myth, and a rather cynical one.


    I think you love arguing more than the practical implications of the argument. As I noted above, Black issues would get thrown under the bus for issues related to decreasing US involvement militarily in the Middle East. The concern about the use of drones might pale in comparison to government slaughter in Syria. Syria would a minor issue compared to starvation the African continent. Can we leave out the tyranny in North Korea?

    Are you willing to state that your concerns about African-Americans trumps your concerns about drone use in a distant land?

    Which issue would be your priority? Blacks? Gays? Women? Drones? Cliimate change?


    As current catastrophe, only black incarceration and drone strikes qualify.

    As numbers of blacks affected is much greater than those few hit by drone strikes, and the effect is moderately equivalent, I'd say the black prison situation is the most pressing.

    (It's also lasted much longer, seeing as drones are a recent invention).

     


    So more taxpayer dollars should go for education targeted to Blacks?


    Perhaps - is education the problem and solution?

    Is it structural discrimination in housing and employment?

    Is it rampant incarceration for trivial issues that disrupts much of black society?

    I'd say fixing a crap drug law is a quicker fix than tackling entrenched societal problems.


    If you track the history of the legal system, uneducated, unskilled Black males will always fall prey to police powers. Drug laws will be replaced by vagrancy laws or other harsh measures. We want the unemployed out of sight.

    Read "Slavery By Another Name" to see how police, judges, farmers and companies worked in concert to get cheap labor for employers and kickbacks to police by incarcerating unemployed Black males.  This was in operation up to World War II. Read the " New Jim Crow" to see how the prison-industrial complex is being used today to incarcerate Black males. Changing drug laws will not change the push to throw Blacks into jail.

    The high school dropout rate among minority youth is alarming. The jobs available to this group is dwindling. The focus has to be on keeping blacks in school and returning jobs to the US. Drug law incarcerations will only be replaced by vagrancy charges if education and Employment is not addressed.

    The legal system is extremely biased and will every hard to change. Even Presidential pardons are rally biased. The reason that cases like those in Jena, Louisiana and Trayvon Martin and even henry Louis Gates become flashpoints is because many have little faith that the legal system treats Blacks equally.


    How about Matthew 15:17-20? Acts 10:15? Note that these are ones I just thought of, and not the result of a Google search.

    After writing that, I decided to do a Google search, and came up with the relationship between (King) David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18:1-5, 1 Samuel 19:1-7, 1 Samuel 20:30-42, 2 Samuel 1:25-6, 1 Samuel 20:41, 2 Samuel 1:18-27—the context is dripping with innuendo, in my opinion). Those came from this site (which discusses much more): http://christiangays.com/marriage/gay_marriage.shtml


    I'll take your word for it, certainly note going to go hunting up Bible verses myself.

    Okay, grab your Gideon's and hit the street corner - proseletyzing to do....


    Some choice excerpts from the David and Jonathan saga (the other excerpts are more easily understood as a very strong friendship, which these could be as well, if one were so inclined):

    1 Samuel 18: 1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.
    1 Samuel 20: 41 After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side [of the stone] and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together--but David wept the most.
    2 Samuel 1: 25 "How the mighty have fallen in battle! Jonathan lies slain on your heights. 26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.

    Sodomites always view these verses in a light most favorable for that position.


    By Sodomites, I assume you mean those not taking care of the poor, right? wink

    (P.S. I was playing devil's advocate, but in reality I doubt that these really refer to a homosexual relationship. Given modern sensibilities and the Bible's tendency to code things dealing with sex, however, it is understandable that people find it … interesting.)


    Weren't Sodomites the ones who supported Hussein after Gulf War I? Republican Guard and all?


    RELIGIOUS FRAUDS

    JOHN ADAMS, ONE OF THIS NATION’S FOUNDING FATHERS, SPEAKS ON HOW RELIGIOUS FRAUDS USE CHRISTIANITY:

    “Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years? . . . The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.”

    IT SEEMS THAT VERY LITTLE HAS CHANGED, WITH EITHER THE FRAUDS, OR THE GULLIBLE.

    Latest Comments