Prev2 of 2Next

The carrot waved in front of the Latino community is fascinating, and a lesson in how minority groups assimilate into Whiteness.  Like many immigrant communities before them, Latinos are currently being attacked.  Clearly NOM’s tactics are predicated on the hope that like the Irish before them, that the ability to oppress others at will is enough of an incentive for Latinos to join the dominant class, against those whom they should exist in solidarity with.  This may well prove advantageous for some White Latinos, who have complete passing privilege, but it will certainly not be the case for darker skinned Latinos.

Whiteness is an enticing incentive because assimilation into the dominant class means the elimination of at least one source of systemic oppression.  It grants one the appearance of being an individual, rather than a representative of one’s sub group; however, acceptance will only be maintained as long as one agrees to uphold the concept that difference means inferior.

Each new wave of immigration has caused a shift in the American experience, even in cases where the minority group achieved Whiteness — as in the case of the Irish.  It’s the potential of radical people of colour to shift the conversation towards increased social equality that terrifies groups like NOM.  Ultimately a segment of Latino’s will have the opportunity to choose between freedom for themselves or freedom for everyone.

NOM can continue to plan and to speculate until the end of time, but it cannot escape the fact that its tactics are patently obvious and reductive.  They don’t take into consideration the configuration of the GLBT community or communities of color, and they most certainly do not consider that communities of color will resist being manipulated in this manner.

According to Mass Equality Executive Director Kara Suffredini, “Seven national polls show that a majority of Americans now support marriage equality. This includes strong growth in support among African-Americans (from 32% to 50%) and among Hispanic voters by nearly 2 to 1, two communities specifically targeted in NOM’s secret strategy memos.” Heterosexism will not be dismantled by the passing of same sex marriage, but with increasing levels of support within the dominant society, and in communities of color, marriage equality is inevitable.  Rather than listening to what NOM has to say about this issue, people of color simply need to ask themselves what side of history they want to be on.

Prev2 of 2Next

26 Comments

  1. Shirl

    Drew-Shane: I couldn’t have said it better!!! Didn’t the bible also say something about slaves obeying their masters? This was used to justify slavery back in the day. I personally don’t believe a loving God would condemn a person because of who that person loves. Why in the heck does who a person chooses to marry affect me? I’m all for same sex marriage.

  2. Beautifulblackmind

    Wow,
    While I don’t deny gays have had their struggle, but every single black person should be offended by the comment that “gay is the new black.”
    As some of you have said, the movements, the struggles are COMPLETELY different. The saying is an insult to Black people particularly because for you to say this type of statement, you are insinuiated that Black issues are now solved and now gay ones take precedence. The reality is gays as a whole did not go through 400 years of slavery, then jim crow. Gays are not suffereing from economic oppression to the degree Blacks are. Whatever you believe about if marriage is for everyone or not is subject to you. It is an OPINION… (please don’t take your opinion to be true just because its your regardless of what side your on). But don’t make the o so liberal insinuation that if Blacks arn’t feminist, or pro gay marriage that they deplete their own struggle.

  3. jamesfrmphilly

    they are here. they are queer. get used to it.

  4. Just as the Vote and Affirmative Action duped subjugated citizens into thinking that they could achieve equal rights and opportunities through legislation; the delusional fallacy of ‘gay marriage’ is not a civil right. (“Gay”, for the purpose of this text, means male homosexuality.)
    Firstly, sexual preference is a choice; similar to liking chocolate, or disliking broccoli. And it’s scientifically incorrect as well as morally offensive to equate it with either race or gender. Since the only love which may be conceived as innate is maternal.
    Second; children, the very reason for marriage, are denied even the basic of human rights: to know and enjoy without severance the love of their birth mother, to have and to hold their genetic heritage, and to be nurtured and supported by a society that values domestic husbandry. Because, when properly supported, a mother’s love is the greatest love of all, and no amount of cross-dressing or political declaration will ever change this, only to degrade it. As it is imperative that patriarchal tyrannies deny and belittle a child’s right to its mother in order to pervert this original love, and transfer it to political and religious institutions which capitalize on the systematic oppression of women.
    Thirdly, without rehashing the egotistical divorce, deadbeat dads, and parental irresponsibility of today’s current family relations: Who exactly benefits from ‘gay marriage’? Be assured it’s not the children of low-income families. On the contrary, those struggling to maintain basic medical and dental plans, designed specifically to provide coverage for parents holding low paying jobs, these families will suffer when rates become unaffordable. Because even though maternity and pediatric care (excluding preemie medicine) are not responsible for the high cost of health care, the treatment for chronic illness perpetuated by sodomy, reckless dirty sex, and drug practices are exorbitantly expensive. Therefore, if high maintenance boyfriends become wives, once again it’s the tax payer who really gets it in the rear, as the health care costs of State employees will soar, and private sector premiums sent sky-rocketing.

    So beware young families and mothers, straight or lesbian, with whom you make your bed. If your family can afford to give $100,000 to a political campaign, then any increase in health insurance is outweighed by the protection it provides a spouse’s assets, basically at the expense of others. Yet if you’re a hardworking low maintenance couple, who doesn’t care to support indifferent men who raise your medical costs while adopting children even though they have no regard whatsoever for motherhood; before you sleep with these blatant male chauvinists pigs, “who are so attractive, intelligent, stylish, and gay…so incredibly perfect that they wouldn’t have sex with a woman if they were the last humans on earth,” you might care to think, at least, of the children.

    Because ‘matrimony’, derived from the word ‘matron’-a woman with child- is an oath of husbandry to children and their families; if there’s no woman then there is no marriage. Moreover, sodomy must never be taught or exposed to children as anything other than a perversion. Where, although appliances can be safely inserted into the anus in order to stimulate the prostate gland, one must question why a man would desire such stimulation; as it is unnatural. And as more studies correlate sodomy with degrading prostate and rectal health, it is therefore also unhealthy. How, and at what age is this explained to children, and by whom? Also, what precautions and parameters should, or can be put in place to prevent inappropriate exposure? If natural parents can have their children taking away for various abuses, what abuses will gay parents be guilty of; how will they be prosecuted, how many kids will suffer, and at what cost?

    To conclude, the Federal Government and sound churches, temples, and mosques; black, white, yellow, and brown are right on this one, ‘gay marriage’ is against the law, and for good reason. But lesbianism and polygamy are not; as any amount of people, a whole community, the entire world can venerate mother and child. So by maternal families recognizing the ulterior motives of gays, and denying them access to children, they could yet secure the blessings of Liberty to themselves and their prosperity.

Comments are moderated, please be respectful. View our policy.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

More in LGBT rights
Close