Jasmyne Cannick, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, describes why she didn't encourage African-Americans to vote against Proposition 8 while canvassing in California:
Because I don't see why the right to marry should be a priority for me or other black people. Gay marriage? Please. At a time when blacks are still more likely than whites to be pulled over for no reason, more likely to be unemployed than whites, more likely to live at or below the poverty line, I was too busy trying to get black people registered to vote, period; I wasn't about to focus my attention on what couldn't help but feel like a secondary issue.
[snip]
Maybe white gays could afford to be singularly focused, raising millions of dollars to fight for the luxury of same-sex marriage. But blacks were walking the streets of the projects and reaching out to small businesses, gang members, convicted felons and the spectrum of an entire community to ensure that we all were able to vote.
[snip]
Some people seem to think that homophobia trumps racism, and that winning the battle for gay marriage will symbolically bring about equality for everyone. That may seem true to white gays, but as a black lesbian, let me tell you: There are still too many inequalities that exist as it relates to my race for that to ever be the case. Ever heard of "driving while black"? Ever looked at the difference between the dropout rates for blacks and for whites? Or test scores? Or wages? Or rates of incarceration? And in the end, black voters in California voted against gay marriage by more than 2 to 1.
I want to sympathize with Jasmyne's clear and present anger. Because I *get* where this anger and frustration is coming from -- real, deep-seated racial injustice that exists and is perpetuated by American institutions like the criminal justice system. I get it. She is called to a different work.
But what she's doing here is first and foremost counter-productive -- and secondly inaccurate. She's building two constructions: first, that all Black people are poor, living in the projects, and dealing with gangs. And second, that "white gays" are wealthy and able to "afford" to focus on such a "luxury" like marriage. So on the one hand, we have the totally oppressed, violated, and victimized minority group: Blacks, generally. And on the other, we have the privileged, wealthy minority group: white gays.
I have news for you, Jasmyne: it ain't that simple. This is identity politics at its lowest point. It's what Loretta Ross of SisterSong calls "Oppression Olympics." Jasmyne here is trying to measure inequalities, and in her book, racism comes out the "winner" of this battle.The message is clear: "Homophobia? Please! That's something for rich people to worry about!" We've heard this before. She's basically arguing that white gays have it so easy, they have time to worry about marriage. This isn't productive. It isn't accurate. And it's mean-spirited.
This kind of bickering over who's got it worse paralyzed feminist movements for decades (and is continuing to do so today). It makes enemies of our brothers and sisters. It focuses the debate not on the real problems we're facing (which include racism AND homophobia), but instead on the futile exercise of measuring our injustice against another's.
Nobody wins in this effort. Well, nobody except social conservatives. They're laughing all the way to the alter.
(Via JMG)
Darling, I think you're being overly dramatic on this point, although I do agree that pitting oppressions against each other doesn't get anyone anywhere.
I didn't read her as saying that all white gays were wealthy and had nothing better to do than fight prop 8, and I don't think she was saying that blacks all live in the projects, but rather that many black organizers were scouring places where blacks have been systematically disenfranchised in order to get them registered and out to the polls. That gay marriage wasn't also top on the agenda during that work makes sense to me - I'm willing to bet that most GOTV organizers also didn't highlight their positions on rapid transit funding, the prostitution ban, caged chickens, or parental consent for pregnancy terminations, or any of the other 32 proposals and initiatives we had to decide on here.
Speaking of, something needs to be done to simplify the elections out here. It's insane to expect that anyone will take the time to inform themselves on so many races and issues, especially when half the initiatives are driven by some corporate interest or another that wasn't able to get its pet issue through the legislature. But I digress....
While this article might be a worthy entrant to the "oppression olympics", and I’m not sure it is, I think dismissing it as just that trivializes Cannick’s central argument: that the no on 8 campaign, specifically, and the mainstream gay movement, generally, have excluded the interests, needs, and leadership of black people. A similar argument is more fully articulated by Kenyon Farrow in his essay "Is Gay Marriage Anti-Black?"
Further, in their statement on Prop 8 Dean Spade and Craig Willse point out that "Current conversations about Prop 8 hide how the same-sex marriage battle has been part of a conservative gay politics that de-prioritizes people of color, poor people, trans people, women, immigrants, prisoners and people with disabilities." They go on to ask "Why isn't Prop 8's passage framed as evidence of the mainstream gay agenda's failure to ally with people of color on issues that are central to racial and economic justice in the US?"
You’re right in your previous post "RE: Dan Savage on Blacks Voting for Prop 8" we don’t need (white) leaders of the gay movement engaging in the kind of half-hearted analysis of race and racism that can spiral "into a cycle of white guilt that paralyzes organizations and movements." On the other hand, we also don’t need Dan Savage and other racist white queers crying reverse racism and scapegoating communities of color for their own organizing failures.
We need leaders and an agenda that reflect the real needs of our queer communities.
I used to agree with the arguments you're referring to Mitchel -- and there are some very good ones -- but really, when I realized that marriage was a fundamental way that benefits (economic and social) were distributed in our culture, the answer was so clear to me. In fact, I think that arguing against marriage -- an institution can provide access to thousands of gay couples (who are NOT all white and rich, as this flawed analysis would seem to be arguing) health care and a whole host of real tangible benefits -- I think that this critique against marriage just can't hold water. It's inherently flawed to me. I understand the place it comes from, and understand that with marriage we're going to get some things that we're not asking for (e.g. entrance into the billion dollar wedding corporate machine), but this will happen whether or not it is legalized, I believe. It's already happening. People are already engaging in these kinds of commitment ceremonies, be they legally recognized or not. So I just think the time for the anti-marriage queer movement has passed. And believe me, I was totally on-board not long ago with the "Against Marriage" drive that was led by some amazing, thoughtful, and fucking brilliant activists. I just think that it's clear that these thing has legs, and it's in progress, and standing in the way (rather than getting involved and trying to make the movement more just / equitable / etc), is misguided. I've thought a lot about this issue over the many years. It's not my issue. But I think it's the issue of our times for gay rights. Like it or not. And I think a victory here would be incredibly significant not just symbolically, but economically as well.
But this is just my two cents.
But why should those economic and social benefits, including healthcare, be tied to marriage?
Republic of T. posted a response to Cannick’s piece and, after his laundry list of examples of marital benefits, he finally gets around to saying:
Don’t worry; I’m not so deluded in my feminist daydreams of class-war and revolution to not understand this and the pragmatic reality that the institution of state-regulated marriage isn’t going anywhere. I know this is an important fight for some homos and am glad that it has energized a whole slew of people who weren’t particularly politically active before. But, to use one of the more pathetic lines from the no on 8 campaign, "no matter how you feel about marriage" don’t you think it is "unfair and wrong" to prioritize this as our only goal?
Actually, I have been struggling to think of one way the mainstream gay agenda prioritizes the needs of poor people, people of color, women, trans people, or immigrants. Marriage? You’re right, it would benefit some poor people and people of color but I’d still argue it disproportionately benefits the rich and white. Hate crimes legislation? Unless you’re already targeted by biased policing and the prison industrial complex. ENDA? Who else should we throw under the bus to get it passed?
If we’re going to make gay marriage the issue of our time we can do a better job of connecting to a broader social justice movement that benefits us all.
PS: We all miss you in SF Trevor! I wish we were bickering about the gays and the election in person over a cocktail!
I hope that no one is suggesting that marriage is the end of the highway for equality -- particularly around the benefits we've described. But that's going to take a much larger, coalitional movement. In reality, I think this will be last flash in the pan for the LGBT movement. Like all identity-based movements, once a certain level of equality is reached (around that singular identity -- which is why these movements are problematic for folks of many identities), it will self-implode because of a level of apathy. We're already seeing this, I think. Before marriage pissed people off, LGBT groups in major metro areas have had a hard time getting people politically movement because of their gay or lesbian identity. I long for a future where values are at the front, instead of identity, for political organizing. It's just going to take some time.
All this is a way of saying, you're right of course that marriage cannot be the end-all-be-all. But because it's a primary way that benefits are distributed, and because that institution ain't going anywhere anytime soon, we've got to have access to it for short-term gains. It's not the end. But I don't think you can argue that it won't do a whole lot of good for many folks.