Black votes, gay rights and religiosity

Is it "OK" to claim that black voters aren't that much different than white voters on gay rights, and especially gay marriage issues, once you factor out their religiosity?

I say absolutely not.

That would be like saying white voters are more likely to support abortion rights while factoring out their lower religiosity.

Black-white differences on some issues, like, say, a school bond election, will have nothing to do with religiosity. But, on a moral issue, you can't just factor out, or statistically "control out," religious beliefs when demographics show they definitely exist.

But, in light of discussion on the Maryland House of Delegates has essentially killing a gay marriage bill,largely due to black opposition, aside from the expected GOP opposition, this issue has come up again.

A commenter named "s" on this Ed Brayton post about the Maryland bill wants to do that, to the point of caps-lock screaming when I called him out, and mentioned people like black lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding, proprietor of
Pam's House Blend, did the same thing with California's Prop. 8.

"S" first claimed I was mistaken, and that another blogger from her team did that.

Nope. (There was one such blogger, but not JUST him.)

I found the post Pam herself had about black voting patterns and Prop. 8. "S," when I posted that link, refused to address it.

Pam herself essentially tries to separate black voters from their greater religiosity, which the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force also did. The task force engaged in "hand-waving" at exit polls which pointed out the racial difference without trying to statistically debunk them.

And, there's this blog post, where Pam quotes extensively from a black woman (but not explicitly identified as gay) divinity student, who claims white in the gay rights movement are putting blacks at the back of the bus. She quotes the Rev. Irene Monroe:

But when critiquing the dominant white LGBTQ community's ongoing efforts to gain marriage equality and its treatment of blacks as their second-class allies in the struggle a reality check happens - both straight and queer African American communities bond together against their strategy for marriage equality.

I don't know if Monroe is 90, 60, 30 or 10 percent correct on her assessment. But, I do know it's anecdotal.

Contra "S" at Ed's blog, you can't, without losing logical coherency, cite your expertise in statistics to show that ethnicity was not a huge factor while "controlling out" religiosity, and then reject exit polling on Prop. 8 without providing statistically valid reasons for doing so.

And, as I blogged more than a year and a half ago, I'm not the only person by any means to pick up on this.

Even blacks who aren't currently religious, i.e., NONEs, as comments on Ed's blog note, are more likely than white counterparts to be inimical to gay rights. It appears, especially in the case of one black commenter who noted she was largely raised by a grandmother, that black "churchiness" may have made a multi-generational pass-through.

Ignoring this issue won't lessen its reality or make it go away.

Beyond her own post on Prop. 8 and voting patters, we also have, by another blogger that was part of her group blog and maybe still is a post like this, also beating down discussion of the issue, and as a straight white person, apparently engaged in concern trolling, too. And white liberal concern trolling by a "Radical Russ" ultimately probably makes the issue worse.

I'm not black. Nor gay. But, I have black friends, and gay friends, though no black gay friends of which I am aware.

And, it's not just blacks and gay rights. There's black atheists, like Infidel Guy. But, other than him, those with a "name" are few and far between, likely for similar reasons, from what I've seen online.

And, I'm a secularist, which makes me look quite askance at religious people justifying holding down a minority, while themselves being of another minority.

Otherwise, referencing anecdotal stories from or about individual black voters, gay or straight, as Pam does, doesn't erase the statistical evidence on the Ed Brayton post.

As for the source of my comment about Pam's House Blend, and a white liberal concern troller like Radical Russ, who had the particular blog post just above?

A person like Radical Russ exemplies part of the problem, to which you are a contributor, namely, the idea that white liberals, whether gay or straight, simply cannot speak on this issue because we have no "standing." I reject that.

I reject that idea, and I reject that type of concern trolling. That's why I call myself a skeptical left liberal.

Back to Pam's House Blend. Again, not by her, but another blogger of her group, a post that wants to cut off discussion just doesn't cut it. Pam herself, from what I can see on the issue, has blogged little about it; her blog on the Maryland bill is primarily straight news, a little analysis, and no commentary.

African American beliefs and gay rights

The Maryland House of Delegates has essentially killed a gay marriage bill. And, it's largely due to black opposition, aside from the expected GOP opposition.

When California passed the anti-gay marriage issue Proposition 8 a couple of years ago, beyond the big dollar spending of the Mormon church, there was a question as to whether African-American voting patterns may have tipped a close election.

I know the issue of African American voting trends and possible influence was a HUGE item of discussion after California passed Prop. 8. Some liberals wanted to dismiss discussion of the issue out of hand. One blog I recall Pam's House Blend, headed by black lesbian Pam Spaulding, but with numerous guest had posts trying to tamp down discussion.

I found the post Pam herself had about black voting patterns and Prop. 8.

Pam herself essentially tries to separate black voters from their greater religiosity, which the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force also did.

And, that doesn't fly in my world. Either her, or the task force's study.

That would be like saying white voters oppose an election initiative that restricts abortion because they're less religious.

And, there's this blog post, where Pam quotes extensively from a black woman (but not explicitly identified as gay) divinity student, who claims white in the gay rights movement are putting blacks at the back of the bus. She quotes the Rev. Irene Monroe:

But when critiquing the dominant white LGBTQ community's ongoing efforts to gain marriage equality and its treatment of blacks as their second-class allies in the struggle a reality check happens - both straight and queer African American communities bond together against their strategy for marriage equality.

I don't know if Monroe is 90, 60, 30 or 10 percent correct on her assessment. But, I do know it's anecdotal.

That said, I'll give Pam partial credit back for noting the NAACP took a No. on 8 position, and for this one on the Maryland bill. However, that post is almost entirely news-style, with little commentary or analysis.

But, with the Maryland House of Delegates killing a gay marriage bill due in part to the opposition of black legislators and black churches, it HAS TO BE brought up:

The difference apparently was the opposition from predominantly black churches, as well as from the Maryland Catholic Conference. Democrats hold a 98-43 advantage over Republicans in the House, but a third (34) of the Democrats belong to the legislative black caucus. With all but one Republican opposing the bill, the bill needed support from the black caucus to get the 71 votes required for passage. In the two weeks before floor debate, at least two members of the black caucus made public switches from co-sponsoring the bill to opposing it.

"The black churches -- since I've been here -- have never asked us for anything, that I can recall. They are asking now, 'Don't use the word marriage,'" Del. Cheryl Glenn, a member of the black caucus, said during floor debate. She said "my faith tells me" to vote against it.

The opposition from black churches, particularly those in Prince George's County, became so significant that The Washington Post devoted a March 8 story to the issue.

Especially when at least one black in the Maryland legislature is ignorant, whehter deliberately or not, about gay history.

Like Del. Emmett Burns:

Del. Emmett Burns, a member of the black caucus and an outspoken opponent of the bill, said he was called the "n-word" for his stance. He also said he was offended by comparisons between the civil rights movement and the "gay marriage" movement.

"Show me your Selma, Alabama," he said during debate. "... violates natural law. It always denies a child either a father or a mother. It promotes the homosexual lifestyle. It turns a moral wrong into a civil right. ... children will be taught that the homosexual lifestyle is on par with the heterosexual lifestyle."

Not heard of the Stonewall riots? Or Matthew Shepard?

Or there's Pastor Robert Anderson Jr.

A prominent Southern Baptist pastor, Robert Anderson Jr., pastor of Colonial Baptist Church in Randallstown, Md., told Baptist Press in February that he, too, found comparisons between civil rights and "gay marriage" offensive.

"We didn't choose to be born black. To be black or African American is not sin," Anderson told Baptist Press. "The fact that we fought for civil rights, we were just fighting for justice for any man, any woman -- regardless of their skin color. ... To try to create a system and special laws for a group of citizens that are living in immorality and wanting to force all of us to embrace that as if it is morally equivalent, that is wrong."

Given that, outside of situational homosexuality in prison, in the old West, or Greek pederasty, lifelong orientation-based homosexuality doesn't appear to be choice-based, you're clueless. Deliberately clueless.

And disgusting.

Beyond that, I'll admit that I am a deliberate contrarian at times, and noting issues like this fits my persona.

But, as I blogged more than a year and a half ago, I'm not the only person by any means to pick up on this.

Even blacks who aren't currently religious, i.e., NONEs, as comments in this Ed Brayton post note, are more likely than white counterparts to be inimical to gay rights. It appears, especially in the case of one black commenter who noted she was largely raised by a grandmother, that black "churchiness" may have made a multi-generational pass-through.

Ignoring this issue won't lessen its reality or make it go away.

Beyond her own post on Prop. 8 and voting patters, we also have, by another blogger that was part of her group blog and maybe still is a post like this, also beating down discussion of the issue, and as a straight white person, apparently engaged in concern trolling, too.

As for the source of my comment about Pam's House Blend, and a white liberal concern troller like Radical Russ, who had the particular blog post just above?

A person like Radical Russ exemplies part of the problem, to which you are a contributor, namely, the idea that white liberals, whether gay or straight, simply cannot speak on this issue because we have no "standing." I reject that.

I reject that idea, and I reject that type of concern trolling. That's why I call myself a skeptical left liberal.

Back to Pam's House Blend. Again, not by her, but another blogger of her group, a post that wants to cut off discussion just doesn't cut it. Pam herself, from what I can see on the issue, has blogged little about it; her blog on the Maryland bill is primarily straight news, a little analysis, and no commentary.

Otherwise, referencing anecdotal stories from or about individual black voters, gay or straight, as Pam does, doesn't erase the statistical evidence on the Ed Brayton post.

And, it's not just blacks and gay rights. There's black atheists, like Infidel Guy. But, other than him, those with a "name" are few and far between, likely for similar reasons, from what I've seen online.

Update: A couple of other issues.

First, per one commenter at Ed's blog, you can't, without losing logical coherency, cite your expertise in statistics to show that ethnicity was not a huge factor while "controlling out" religiosity, and then reject exit polling on Prop. 8 without providing statistically valid reasons for doing so. Pam did the same. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force study she cited basically did the same.

Second, contra that same commenter on Ed's blog, you cannot, IMO "control out" religion in such a case, since we have plenty of demographic research showing blacks are more religious than whites and this is an issue with religious overtones. If we were talking about a bond issue for a new elementary school, religiosity could indeed be "controlled out" on black-white differences, but it can't here.

But, I'm not going back to Ed's block to argue with someone who starts "all-caps" responding to me, then, when I ask him to chill a bit, does it even worse in a response six times as long.

I will, though, shortly work this into a new blog post following up on that idea.

Since, even with religiosity "controlled out" there was a 5.5 percent difference in ethnicity on Prop. 8 support (though "s" doesn't do a more specific black-white breakout) I think I can venture that without "controlling out" religious belief, the black-white gap on Prop. 8 is around 10 percent.

Sorry, "s," Pam, "Radical Russ," etc. You're wrong.