In a post today at Harvard Political Review, Charlottean and Harvard student Ivel Posada picks out what has got to be the best line from this week’s Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on California’s Proposition 8.
Posada writes (emphasis mine):
Proponents listed several “ legitimate interests” advanced by Prop 8; the Court struck down every purported interest as irrational. At one point, backers of Prop 8 argued that the purpose of marriage is to reduce the “threat of unintended pregnancies out of wedlock” and so foster “responsible procreation.” Because same-sex couples are not at risk of accidental pregnancies, the argument continued, there is no need to offer them access to the institution of marriage. Further still, proponents also contended that prohibiting same-sex marriage would strengthen “traditional” families. The Court’s response to this claim bordered mockery:
“It is implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman. While deferential, the rational basis standard is not a toothless one. Even the standard of rationality must find some footing in reality.”
“Legalize Gay. Repeal Prop 8.” We’ve all seen it. American Apparel has made sure of that. Their brightly-colored T-shirts emblazoned with an amazingly simple yet strongly impactful slogan have been passed out to thousands at LGBT Pride festivals and other events the nation over. The slogan has even made its way into print on tank tops, string tops and underwear (panties and thongs included).
Now, in response to a perceived lack of full inclusion, a transgender activist who’s worked on several LGBT equality projects is taking matters into his own hands and creating the “Legalize Trans” campaign.
Last night I was watching the Rachel Maddow Show and was overjoyed she quoted from an LGBT news publication, Dallas Voice. I immediately tweeted it through QNotes and RT’ed. (h/t goes to Queerty for the video.
The quote comes in at about 7 min. 10 sec.
Is it any surprise she’s again pointing fingers and speaking outrageously?
Instead of denouncing Obama’s choice to invite Warren, gays should be hailing it, as it shows a continued effort on Obama’s behalf to reach across the aisle in an effort to bring everyone to the table, the very thing that the gay leadership hasn’t even made an effort to learn how do post Prop. 8.
Seriously, I don’t understand why she’s so divisive. Besides the fact she’s blatantly wrong about the LGBT community and its lessons learned after Prop. 8 (I’ve been in many conversations about this issue since Prop. 8), I just don’t understand how she, of all people, can advocate “bringing everyone to the table” when that includes sitting down with people who deny your existence, work against your civil rights and compare your love to pedophilia and incest.
Jasmyne, would you sit down with white racists who wanted to take away your civil rights as an African-American? No? Guess what: I don’t want to sit down with homophobes who want to take away my rights, either.
Oh, Jasmyne… Are you trying to score brownie points with Rick Warren? Newsflash: He doesn’t like you or lesbianism either. He doesn’t care that you’re black: All he’ll ever see is your lady-lovin’.
Oh, and one more point:
Criticizing the first Black president before he even takes the oath of office for doing something that white gays themselves haven’t been able to do, bring everyone to the table, isn’t going to win them any fans in the Black community.
As politically incorrect as this is going sound, I feel it needs to be said. The white gay community needs to go somewhere and just STFU already and let Obama get into office.
Jasmyne, that’s the most racist thing I’ve heard. Obama can’t be criticized just because he’s “the first Black president” and because he hasn’t taken office yet? Sounds like someone has an Obama-Messiah complex. I love Obama. I voted for Obama. I think Obama will be best to deliver LGBT equality, but that doesn’t mean he’s perfect. Thank God we live in America and can actually criticize our leaders, but, oh, I forgot, The Great and Mighty Cannick says we shouldn’t do that because he’s black.
I think I’ve lost all respect for Jasmyne Cannick; to think I actually used to defend her opinion among my friends and collegues almost sickens me.
It’s pretty clear that Jasmyne Cannick is good at only one thing: She exists to divide and conquer — to pit one minority against another. All this complaining and acrimonious bellyaching and, yet, not one constructive, positive attempt to bridge the gaps. Yes, there are problems between the white LGBT community and black community (of all sexual orientations), but Cannick’s self-righteous, racist rants aren’t making any headway in bridging those gaps. She’s doing quite the opposite actually: She’s tearing down the bridges before they can even be built.
The following post was written Friday night. Not the best time to be read by most of my readers or the web, but I just had to get it out. To make sure it gets the attention it needs, I’ve promoted it back to the top today. There’s some good conversation over at the Pam’s House Blend cross post.
It seems as though, after Prop. 8, there’s been a whole lot of conversation on the intersections between race and sexuality.
I wonder if we’ve learned anything. Or, maybe we’ve all be foaming at the mouth with absolutely zero listening capacity.
In a recent Bilerico post, “No on ‘Gay is Black,'” I wasn’t surprised to see the conversation very quickly turn into a competition of which group has suffered the most. It’s as if civil rights should be doled out on the basis of the pain inflicted rather than on the basis of what is actually right and wrong inside the legal and moral framework of our Constitution and national ideals.
Allow me to elaborate. You know how towns like Greensboro, North Carolina will have weird shit on their McDonalds menus that the rest of the nation doesn’t? Like the McOstrich Deluxe or the Samurai Grimace Wasabi Shake or whatever? That’s because Greensboro is a test market, a.k.a. a geographic area specifically chosen to assess the feasibility of a product or service before a potential wide-scale roll-out.
Armed with this information, you’re likely thinking, “Come on. Same-sex marriage is a far greater issue than a new kind of burger/dairy beverage combo, as groundbreakingly delicious as that burger/dairy beverage combo might be.” And you’d be right. Which is why, when it comes to this watershed issue of our time, one riddled with potentially divisive implications, America has a much larger, more comprehensive test market at its disposal.
It’s called Canada.
The Huffington Post’s Seteven Shehori says that despite Canada’s marriage for all, it’s still “business as usual” — “In fact, things are pretty much exactly the same as before the law was passed. Hockey has remained the greatest sport created by man. It’s still soul-crushingly cold up here between October and April (read: May). And we continue to hold the patent to that pretty cool robot arm thing on the Space Shuttle. The only difference now is that, on occasion, we’ll come across a dude who’ll say, ‘Hey, meet my husband Miguel,’ instead of ‘Hey, meet my partner Miguel.'”