In Harlem, the Governor’s Support of Same-Sex Marriage Gets a Mixed Reaction

[4PointOh]

Nothing like good ol' homophobia to divide the troops and rally the bigots!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/nyregion/02gay.html?ex=1213070400&en=21c95275eb26e01f&ei=5070

By CARA BUCKLEY
Published: June 2, 2008

The news not only caught Edwin Perez off guard, it turned his stomach.

Mr. Perez, 28, had long been a supporter of Gov. David A. Paterson, who forged his political career in Harlem, which he represented in the State Senate for 23 years. But Mr. Paterson’s recent move to order state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere eroded Mr. Perez’s respect for a man he had once greatly admired.

“I’ve lost my faith in him because of this,” said Mr. Perez, a law student at Fordham University who also sells incense and scented oils on the corner of West 125th Street and Lenox Avenue.

“He could be trying to pick up the backing of the gay population, but even with that agenda, it’s still not right,” said Mr. Perez, a burly man who converted to Islam as a teenager, and who believes that homosexuality is a sin. “It’s just wrong. It’s nasty.”

Yet Mr. Perez’s view, while echoed in several corners of Harlem, was by no means universally held throughout the neighborhood, where many cherish Mr. Paterson as a native son. In polls, blacks have traditionally leaned conservative when it comes to gay rights and same-sex marriage, with many people believing that homosexuality is morally wrong.

But on Sunday, roughly as many residents voiced their approval for Mr. Paterson’s stance as those who stood against it. Some people said they were shocked by the news. Some refused to talk about it, holding up their hands and walking away at the mention of the phrase “same-sex.”

Others said that Mr. Paterson was acting against the word of God, and setting a poor example. Still others saw Mr. Paterson’s directive as a logical extension of his support for progressive causes.

“I’m comfortable with it. We’re all people. You’re going to love who you love,” said Tyisha Layne, 25, a homemaker who lives in the Grant Houses in Harlem. “It’s like freedom of speech. You should be able to do whatever you want, and not be discriminated against.”

Indeed, some families discovered that the news sparked conversations that had not been held before.

“I have nothing against same-sex marriage, if it makes people happy,” said Lorice Johnson, 70, as she waited with her daughter, Sharon McPherson, for the M7 bus on Lenox Avenue, just south of West 125th Street. They were heading to Macy’s.

“To each his own. I can’t judge. I can’t tell someone who to love,” Ms. Johnson continued. “I think it’s a good thing.”

Ms. McPherson, who is 47, looked up, her eyes wide.

“Wow, Mom, I didn’t know you felt that. That’s deep,” she said.

Ms. McPherson said her mother had long been deeply conservative. “Really old-school,” Ms. McPherson said.

Smiling, Ms. Johnson said that her conservative views had softened with age, and that Mr. Paterson’s directive had deepened her respect for him. “I like him, because I think he’s fair,” she said. “And what he did was bold.”

Ms. McPherson had mixed feelings. While she said she did not agree with same-sex marriage, she also strongly opposed any form of discrimination.

“It’s the same as civil rights,” Ms. McPherson said. “You can’t say something’s wrong with being gay. It’s like saying something’s wrong with being black.”

Farther north, in front of the Abyssinian Baptist Church on West 138th Street, several sidewalk vendors held sharply different views.

Mattie Smith, 53, who was selling jewelry near the door of the church, said she adored Mr. Paterson, but was floored by what she described as his sudden backing of same-sex marriage rights.

“I was absolutely shocked. I had to read the paper three times,” she said. “No one expected this, this came from out of nowhere. I don’t know why David Paterson supported this. Maybe he was forced?”

Across from Ms. Smith, Michael Michaels, 37, a D.J. selling gospel CDs, slowly shook his dreadlocked head.

“It’s wrong according to the Bible,” he said in a low voice. “It shows things are out of whack, nuts. There’s no limit to anything anymore.”

“Isn’t it shocking,” Ms. Smith interjected, referring to Mr. Paterson, “for a black man to support that?”

Other Harlem residents voiced more nuanced views, saying that while they disagreed with same-sex marriage, they still approved of Mr. Paterson’s leadership.

“Personally I’m against it,” said R. Kenyatta Punter, 42, a real estate developer. “It doesn’t change my opinion of him, but I respectfully disagree.”

Mr. Punter said he believed that if the proposal were put to vote in the state, it would “definitely fail.”

The Rev. Solomon Thomas, 70, a Baptist pastor, said he still supported Mr. Paterson but felt like he was acting against the will of many people in New York.

“I like him being the governor,” the minister said. “But I think he made a bad mistake.”

Yet Brigette Mills, 47, who works as a security guard, said that her high opinion of Mr. Paterson was unchanged. He is an honest man, she said, who was correct in standing for other people’s rights.

“I think he’s a great guy,” Ms. Mills said. “And if this opens up doors that’ve been closed for other people, why not?”

[Corrina]

From what I read in the NY Times this week, Paterson has long been a supporter of gay rights and has never been shy about it.

The people who claim that it's a shock or something new haven't been paying much attention, I think.

[Spike-X]

“Isn’t it shocking,” Ms. Smith interjected, referring to Mr. Paterson, “for a black man to support that?”

A black man supporting equal rights? What's that all about?

[Tetsuo_man]

A black man supporting equal rights? What's that all about?

http://www.blacklightonline.com/phobia.html

Black gay activist Billy Jones said, "Many Blacks see the whole Gay movement as a means of destroying the Black family. When they talk about Gay men they see it as unmanly, weak. They don't think of Gays as being family people, as having children."

[ShaunN]

Dear Friends,

I don't know how true this is, but there has long been a perception that the African American community in the US is particularly anti-gay. The same perception exists re: attitudes towards gays in the Carribbean and Africa. Again, I don't know how true this is - I have not seen any serious polls or studies done on this subject and I think that it would be difficult to prove that African Americans are especially or seriously more anti-gay than many other sectors of the population, given how deep and widespread homophobia is within many different cultures and across many different ethnic and religious groups.

(President Ahmadinejad of Iran's supposed comment that there are no gay people in Iran may be an example of this, though I've heard that his comment was mistranslated - he said something more like there was no gay culture in Iran, which is probably closer to the truth -certainly, it would be far underground. Also, most of the people I've met who are strongly anti-gay base their opposition in religion - i.e., they've been Christians or Muslims, and their attitudes may not necessarily reflect larger cultural attitudes).

However, it has been pointed out that in hip-hop and rap songs, killing or abusing homosexuals (and approving of doing so) is a common topic. Insofar as these kinds of music reflect serious cultural attitudes, then there may be something to this.

The explanation I've heard for why the African American community may be more homophobic than the general population is that the attitude is related, or mixed into, the strong relationship of the Christian faith to the community. However, the general anti-gay attitude has probably spread far beyond religious justification.

Again, I don't know if any of this is demonstrably true. I think that it is clear that some communities are more averse to homosexuality than others (for example, Muslims seem to have a particular antipathy to homosexuality), and we should probably remember that the developing tolerance for homosexuality in Western society is a relatively recent phenomenon, and is probably related to the changes caused in society by economic and associated social change (i.e, the breakdown of traditional values and structures). The fact that same-sex marriage is still an issue in a country like the US, which prides itself on its respect for individual rights, is a major comment on how new the issue really is.

As far as I know, only 3 or 4 countries currently allow same sex marriage - Canada, Spain, South Africa (I believe), and one other place that escapes my memory at the moment - probably a Scandinavian country.

Take care,

Shaun

[Charles RB]

However, it has been pointed out that in hip-hop and rap songs, killing or abusing homosexuals (and approving of doing so) is a common topic. Insofar as these kinds of music reflect serious cultural attitudes, then there may be something to this.

Those songs and related culture are also hyper-masculine - could it just be the usual thing of homosexuality threatening people's sense of what it means to be a Man?

[Paul McEnery]

Those songs and related culture are also hyper-masculine - could it just be the usual thing of homosexuality threatening people's sense of what it means to be a Man?

Methinks the ladies doth protest too much.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

This is one issue where I think conservatives get it wrong, and gay marriage will eventually become legal, because it's fair and just. It will take a while for America to come around to that, though.

[Paul McEnery]

This is one issue where I think conservatives get it wrong, and gay marriage will eventually become legal, because it's fair and just. It will take a while for America to come around to that, though.

Depends how you define conservative, doesn't it.

If we define it the Ethan Van Sciver way...

[Black Atom]

Dear Friends,

I don't know how true this is, but there has long been a perception that the African American community in the US is particularly anti-gay. The same perception exists re: attitudes towards gays in the Carribbean and Africa. Again, I don't know how true this is - I have not seen any serious polls or studies done on this subject and I think that it would be difficult to prove that African Americans are especially or seriously more anti-gay than many other sectors of the population, given how deep and widespread homophobia is within many different cultures and across many different ethnic and religious groups.

(President Ahmadinejad of Iran's supposed comment that there are no gay people in Iran may be an example of this, though I've heard that his comment was mistranslated - he said something more like there was no gay culture in Iran, which is probably closer to the truth -certainly, it would be far underground. Also, most of the people I've met who are strongly anti-gay base their opposition in religion - i.e., they've been Christians or Muslims, and their attitudes may not necessarily reflect larger cultural attitudes).

However, it has been pointed out that in hip-hop and rap songs, killing or abusing homosexuals (and approving of doing so) is a common topic. Insofar as these kinds of music reflect serious cultural attitudes, then there may be something to this.

The explanation I've heard for why the African American community may be more homophobic than the general population is that the attitude is related, or mixed into, the strong relationship of the Christian faith to the community. However, the general anti-gay attitude has probably spread far beyond religious justification.

Again, I don't know if any of this is demonstrably true. I think that it is clear that some communities are more averse to homosexuality than others (for example, Muslims seem to have a particular antipathy to homosexuality), and we should probably remember that the developing tolerance for homosexuality in Western society is a relatively recent phenomenon, and is probably related to the changes caused in society by economic and associated social change (i.e, the breakdown of traditional values and structures). The fact that same-sex marriage is still an issue in a country like the US, which prides itself on its respect for individual rights, is a major comment on how new the issue really is.

As far as I know, only 3 or 4 countries currently allow same sex marriage - Canada, Spain, South Africa (I believe), and one other place that escapes my memory at the moment - probably a Scandinavian country.

Take care,

Shaun

There's less support for gay rights and similar issues among the lower economic classes and those with less education (this is true for whites as well). Poverty rates are disproportionately high and the number of college graduates disproportionately low among blacks, so maybe those are the telling indicators, rather than race.

Plus, I think homophobia in the black community generates more hubbub because there's an expectation of sympathy for the cause.

[ShaunN]

Dear Black Atom,

Those are excellent points. The socio-economic/educational factor is probably at work. Moreover, as you point out, the idea that African Americans would support discrimination against other groups does seem counterintuitive to their own experience of discrimination. Of course, many African American/minority supporters of gay rights make exactly that argument.

I understand the "hyper-masculine" argument, but it does seem extremely defensive. Moreover, lots of gay men are hyper-masculine.

To refer to Ethan's point: I think that it is really interesting that the US Supreme Court has not struck down laws discriminating against gay marriage already. In Canada, this is what happened -the Supreme Court basically told the government that not recognizing gay marriage was against our Charter of Rights and could no longer be tolerated. This was after several years of various Canadian courts basically telling the government the same thing but giving it the time to change the laws on its own. When it did not, the SC finally acted. The argument was very simple: the right to marry who one wants is an individual right. There is no logical or ethical reason to deny marriage to gay people. It's a very obvious extension of individual rights.

(As an aside, I suspect that polygymy/polyandry may eventually be recognized in Canada for similar reasons - the marriage arrangements that people which to indulge are thier own business, so long as they are not harming others).

In Canada, about 70% of the Canadian population support some legal recognition of gay unions. About 50% support gay marriage, but that means 50% do not (and conservative immigrant communities are among those most strongly opposed). However, I suspect that the level of support has gone up since we've had gay marriage for a few years and the sky has not fallen in.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[cedardryad]

Dear Friends,

I don't know how true this is, but there has long been a perception that the African American community in the US is particularly anti-gay. The same perception exists re: attitudes towards gays in the Carribbean and Africa. Again, I don't know how true this is - I have not seen any serious polls or studies done on this subject and I think that it would be difficult to prove that African Americans are especially or seriously more anti-gay than many other sectors of the population, given how deep and widespread homophobia is within many different cultures and across many different ethnic and religious groups.

(President Ahmadinejad of Iran's supposed comment that there are no gay people in Iran may be an example of this, though I've heard that his comment was mistranslated - he said something more like there was no gay culture in Iran, which is probably closer to the truth -certainly, it would be far underground. Also, most of the people I've met who are strongly anti-gay base their opposition in religion - i.e., they've been Christians or Muslims, and their attitudes may not necessarily reflect larger cultural attitudes).

However, it has been pointed out that in hip-hop and rap songs, killing or abusing homosexuals (and approving of doing so) is a common topic. Insofar as these kinds of music reflect serious cultural attitudes, then there may be something to this.

The explanation I've heard for why the African American community may be more homophobic than the general population is that the attitude is related, or mixed into, the strong relationship of the Christian faith to the community. However, the general anti-gay attitude has probably spread far beyond religious justification.

Again, I don't know if any of this is demonstrably true. I think that it is clear that some communities are more averse to homosexuality than others (for example, Muslims seem to have a particular antipathy to homosexuality), and we should probably remember that the developing tolerance for homosexuality in Western society is a relatively recent phenomenon, and is probably related to the changes caused in society by economic and associated social change (i.e, the breakdown of traditional values and structures). The fact that same-sex marriage is still an issue in a country like the US, which prides itself on its respect for individual rights, is a major comment on how new the issue really is.

As far as I know, only 3 or 4 countries currently allow same sex marriage - Canada, Spain, South Africa (I believe), and one other place that escapes my memory at the moment - probably a Scandinavian country.

Take care,

Shaun

I remember seeing this in a documentary about homosexuality and middle sexes. One of the people mentioned how a lot of African Americans, not Africans, blame the white people for introducing homosexuality into Africa. They blamed the Dutch, when in fact there were a lot of cases of homosexuality in Africa before hand. There are countries in Africa where they do have gay marriages. Imagine that third world countries that have gay marriage before America does. Either way I think it had something to do with missionaries. I think it has to do with groups that have been converted to Christianity are more likely to be more Christian and uphold their beliefs more strictly based on how they were converted.

[ShaunN]

Dear Cedaryrd,

Somewhat on these same lines, I recall reading somewhere that in many traditional African societies, homosexual relationships between young men were both tolerated and expected. It was treated as a stage that young men go through. However, there was a solid expectation that the men would eventually "outgrow" this stage and, once they matured, assume their social responsibility of marrying and raising children.

A little while ago, an African Anglican Bishop who has attracted quite a following in North America and Europe among Anglicans who oppose their Church's efforts to accommodate homosexuals, made the argument that those efforts were another example of white people imposing their values on Africans and others. The way he put it, the Europeans came in, and forced Africans to convert to the Christian faith. At the same time, it was the Europeans who taught Africans, on the basis of that faith, that homosexuality was wrong. Now, years later and because of social changes that have occurred in the Western world, the Europeans/whites want to change the rules again, and again without consulting the non-white people affected. He rejects this idea.

I think that he has a point. In particular, as I alluded to earlier, homosexuality has had a place in many traditional societies, but not necessarily the kind of place that Western liberals now argue it should have. The conditions that have made this Western liberal attitude possible do not necessarily exist in many other places in the world, and I think that we need to be sensitive to this. I am certainly not advocating discrimination against gay people, but we need to be aware that extending homosexual rights, in many places in the world, is about forcing fundamental changes in traditional societies that hold very different attitudes and ideals than many Westerners.

Of course, we have to be careful not to overgeneralize - as I noted earlier, very few countries in the world allow gay marriage and the fact that it is such a hot button issue in the US indicates the extent to which "we" are not that far ahead of the more traditional national societies.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[cedardryad]

I totally agree that forcing one's views on others is totally wrong. Of course control one's religious beliefs and you control the populace.

I know of a region in Africa where gay marriages are done. Two women can marry for example and if they want children, the female in the wife role can sleep with a man to have that a child. Once the child is born it takes the husband wife's last name and becomes her legitamate heir. This goes the same if the woman had children from a previous marriage.

Homosexuality isn't a new thing, it just has a name now.

[Spike-X]

Now, years later and because of social changes that have occurred in the Western world, the Europeans/whites want to change the rules again, and again without consulting the non-white people affected. He rejects this idea.

I think that he has a point.

I think he's full of shit.

Regarding the specific part I quoted, that is.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

Depends how you define conservative, doesn't it.

If we define it the Ethan Van Sciver way...

Then everything shifts to the left. I am a moderate, very clearly.

[Paul McEnery]

Then everything shifts to the left. I am a moderate, very clearly.

Either that, or some people have been describing themselves as conservatives who are no such thing.

[ShaunN]

Dear Spike-X,

I think that it is dangerous to simply dismiss people as being "full of shit". Understanding where this man is coming from is important, and his point is also important. For generations, African Anglicans (and of other religious faiths) have been taught that homosexuality is a sexual perversion. They have been given what they regard as solid religious reasons for this belief. Many of them have come to accept this idea and its reasoning. And now, without any corresponding change in their own societies, they are being told that the Western branch of the Church has changed its mind on this issue and that they should change too.The Bishop's reaction probably reflects the reaction of most of his congregation. For most of these people, their reaction is probably the same as ours would be if our favourite Church got up and ruled that pedophilia was acceptable. And no, I am not equating homosexuality with pedophilia - my point is just that for many people, "sexual perversion" is sexual perversion. They have a difficult time seeing the nuances or accepting the various arguments in favour of homosexuality when they have been fed such strong negative images for such a long time.

The Bishop has thrown in the added and important element of colonialism - and few things garner such a strong reaction in the developing world as raising the specter of colonialism. Again, I think that he has a point. In the West, the move towards accepting homosexuals as equals has been long, very gradual, and is certainly not complete. The same changes in attitude cannot simply be decreed in societies where very few of these corresponding changes have occurred.

This very simplistic way of thinking is really dangerous. Another example of this same kind of oversimplification is the attitude on the part of many Western liberals towards "democracy". The idea that one can hold elections and then say that a state is democratic - or, even, that "democracy" is necessarily a good thing for every state - really whitewashes both the historical process by which democracy evolved in the West as well as the economic, social and political conditions needed to make it sustainable.

Being aware of the social, political and historical realities on the ground is important if one really wants to bring about lasting change. Dismissing this Bishop as merely a bigot or as "full of shit" doesn't (in my view) pay due respect to the need to engage people on their own terms. The critical mass to change attitudes towards homosexuality barely exists in the US. To assume that it can be imposed from outside in other societies is sure to inspire a backlash.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Spike-X]

Dear Shaun,

I see your point. Still not sure I agree with it, but I understand better where you're coming from. thanks for the clarification.

Sincerely,

Spike-X

[4PointOh]

Dear Spike-X,

I think that it is dangerous to simply dismiss people as being "full of shit". Understanding where this man is coming from is important, and his point is also important. For generations, African Anglicans (and of other religious faiths) have been taught that homosexuality is a sexual perversion. They have been given what they regard as solid religious reasons for this belief. Many of them have come to accept this idea and its reasoning. And now, without any corresponding change in their own societies, they are being told that the Western branch of the Church has changed its mind on this issue and that they should change too.The Bishop's reaction probably reflects the reaction of most of his congregation. For most of these people, their reaction is probably the same as ours would be if our favourite Church got up and ruled that pedophilia was acceptable. And no, I am not equating homosexuality with pedophilia - my point is just that for many people, "sexual perversion" is sexual perversion. They have a difficult time seeing the nuances or accepting the various arguments in favour of homosexuality when they have been fed such strong negative images for such a long time.

The Bishop has thrown in the added and important element of colonialism - and few things garner such a strong reaction in the developing world as raising the specter of colonialism. Again, I think that he has a point. In the West, the move towards accepting homosexuals as equals has been long, very gradual, and is certainly not complete. The same changes in attitude cannot simply be decreed in societies where very few of these corresponding changes have occurred.

This very simplistic way of thinking is really dangerous. Another example of this same kind of oversimplification is the attitude on the part of many Western liberals towards "democracy". The idea that one can hold elections and then say that a state is democratic - or, even, that "democracy" is necessarily a good thing for every state - really whitewashes both the historical process by which democracy evolved in the West as well as the economic, social and political conditions needed to make it sustainable.

Being aware of the social, political and historical realities on the ground is important if one really wants to bring about lasting change. Dismissing this Bishop as merely a bigot or as "full of shit" doesn't (in my view) pay due respect to the need to engage people on their own terms. The critical mass to change attitudes towards homosexuality barely exists in the US. To assume that it can be imposed from outside in other societies is sure to inspire a backlash.

Sincerely,

Shaun

You do, however, understand the difficulty in trying to extend an olive branch to a man who effectively wishes to cut off your head, yes?

[Paul McEnery]

Dear Spike-X,

I think that it is dangerous to simply dismiss people as being "full of shit". Understanding where this man is coming from is important, and his point is also important. For generations, African Anglicans (and of other religious faiths) have been taught that homosexuality is a sexual perversion. They have been given what they regard as solid religious reasons for this belief. Many of them have come to accept this idea and its reasoning. And now, without any corresponding change in their own societies, they are being told that the Western branch of the Church has changed its mind on this issue and that they should change too.The Bishop's reaction probably reflects the reaction of most of his congregation. For most of these people, their reaction is probably the same as ours would be if our favourite Church got up and ruled that pedophilia was acceptable. And no, I am not equating homosexuality with pedophilia - my point is just that for many people, "sexual perversion" is sexual perversion. They have a difficult time seeing the nuances or accepting the various arguments in favour of homosexuality when they have been fed such strong negative images for such a long time.

The Bishop has thrown in the added and important element of colonialism - and few things garner such a strong reaction in the developing world as raising the specter of colonialism. Again, I think that he has a point. In the West, the move towards accepting homosexuals as equals has been long, very gradual, and is certainly not complete. The same changes in attitude cannot simply be decreed in societies where very few of these corresponding changes have occurred.

This very simplistic way of thinking is really dangerous. Another example of this same kind of oversimplification is the attitude on the part of many Western liberals towards "democracy". The idea that one can hold elections and then say that a state is democratic - or, even, that "democracy" is necessarily a good thing for every state - really whitewashes both the historical process by which democracy evolved in the West as well as the economic, social and political conditions needed to make it sustainable.

Being aware of the social, political and historical realities on the ground is important if one really wants to bring about lasting change. Dismissing this Bishop as merely a bigot or as "full of shit" doesn't (in my view) pay due respect to the need to engage people on their own terms. The critical mass to change attitudes towards homosexuality barely exists in the US. To assume that it can be imposed from outside in other societies is sure to inspire a backlash.

Sincerely,

Shaun

All of that's important to understand in a general sense so as to understand the roots of bigotry, for sure.

But Akinola's still a vicious little shit who needs his face kicked in.

[Charles RB]

There are countries in Africa where they do have gay marriages.

I assume not state-sanctioned ones, as AFAIK only South Africa has that.

[Charles RB]

EDIT: Buggering net crash.

[Dreadstar]

I don't find it especially newsworthy that bigotry exists everywhere.