« Never Too Soon to Rewrite History, I guess... | Kirsten's Blog | World AIDS Day, and its Critics »
Marriage Equality as a Health Issue
Or so suggests Charles Blow.
I'm very pleased to see his clear presentation of all the under-reported data, especially on HIV infection rates. And I agree that white gay civil-rights activists have long been totally tone-deaf (and some beyond tone-deaf into downright racist) with regards to how their civil-rights rhetoric sounds to African Americans. Thirdly, it's patently clear that the gay marriage movement needs to change their message and strategy, and Blow's insights are very helpful there. For example:
I'm very pleased to see his clear presentation of all the under-reported data, especially on HIV infection rates. And I agree that white gay civil-rights activists have long been totally tone-deaf (and some beyond tone-deaf into downright racist) with regards to how their civil-rights rhetoric sounds to African Americans. Thirdly, it's patently clear that the gay marriage movement needs to change their message and strategy, and Blow's insights are very helpful there. For example:
Then, make it part of a broader discussion about the perils of rigidly applying yesterday's sexual morality to today's sexual mores. Show black women that it backfires. The stigma doesn't erase the behavior, it pushes it into the shadows where, devoid of information and acceptance, it become more risky.But, we have to be careful not to adopt the pragmatic, interests-based logic at the expense of the assertion that the fight for marriage equality is still about the fight for just that -- equality under the law.
Advertisement
You're one step ahead of me! I see marriage as part of health, but I actually found his logic yesterday tortuous - and it's going to hard to get his target audience to follow it, let alone be persuaded.
I think we'd get further, for example, by bringing together women who are volunteering for some type of community service. Black. White. Straight. Gay. Put enough people together in an activity which requires cooperation and over time, you've sown the seeds of relationships and understanding. (I say women because he has clearly identified a target group - black women.) But the same principle pertains no matter what. (Michele Obama might be a huge role model here!)
I'm going to cast a wide net when it comes to what is a Public Health issue. And racism or any type of bigotry is a threat to mental health and thus part of preventive care. That's my tack. Bring in the spiritual element too.. in terms of instilling "hospitality" - if you didn't see that post, click my name and then scroll down the blogs till you find it: Dignity, Hospitality, Community.
Blessings upon you. Merci beaucoup!
November 30, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle Obama strikes me as deeply religious. Afterall, Trinity where Wright pastored, was HER church. Obama married Michelle there. Women get married in their churches not the grooms.
November 30, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Thera, I agree -- I do actually think marriage is a public health issue, just not in the way Blow is focusing on. It's an end-of-life health issue, a reproductive health issue, and as you point out, a mental health issue.
I agree with you on the idea that this battle will really be won in relational contexts like community service. (and that includes churches!) Time and again it has been proven that the factor most likely to influence someone on questions of marriage equality is personal relationships with gay people. Not, as Blow suggests, personal-interests-based reasoning.
December 1, 2008 4:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kirsten,
I see Blow's point but I disagree. His presentation of blacks and church attendance correlating to a yes vote by black women should have placed far more emphasis on religion vs. race. In short, Christians who attend church regularly voted for Prop 8, faith is a much stronger correlate than race. Religiousity is the core determinate issue not race.
Once a reader recognizes that this is a religious issue for Christians independent of race, the rest of Blow's argument falls apart.
Christians are not going to support gay marriage, no matter if a subset of black women, marry less or are least likely to marry interracially. While those variables are true, it is religion that carries the day, not whether they are least likely to marry or least of all likely to marry interracially. Blow's focus on that comes across not only as petty but highly offensive as it smacks of saying that black women are the least desirable of all races.
With regard to health issues and the 'downlow' factor accounting for a lot of the transmission in the black community...it too seems likely t0 be a non-game changer.
As, the incidence of HIV within the black community is much better correlated with the national prison incarceration rates of black males. Black males are not likely to acknowledge their bisexuality, due to the 'gangsta/thug image' that is the stereotypical standard for black masculinity. In fact, black males tend to marry women and have families much more so than they are looking to marry black males. Just like most males, they see sex as something to do, not an identity regardless of the gender of their partner. Black bisexuals typically say they love women but they have sex with men. In short, they are not clamoring for a 'gay lifestyle'. Being black is enough of a challenge.
Blow seems not to get how deeply the black male psyche repudiates being gay. The non-acceptance is so great that the CDC changed their questionairre to 'do you sleep with men' vs. 'are you gay' as black men consistently denied being gay despite being HIV positive yet were willing to acknowledge they had sex with other men...thus a new category MSM, men who sleep with men.
These issues are not about black women and no amount of drawing attention to the incidence of HIV is going to drive religious women, regardless of race, to support homosexuals marrying.
Making it a health issue is likely to mean they will be that much more convinced that homosexuals need not marry, as it will not decrease the spread of the disease, given that it is 'incarceration MSM culture' that is perpetuating the problem.
November 30, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like your analysis. Which is why I think the only way to address the religious voters is to help them see that other religious virtues, that they should be practicing, trump their concerns about the private lives of others. It's a matter of helping them see that Jesus taught compassion and never spoke a word, that we know of, against homosexuality. It's not in the Gospels. We need to move the argument to the territory of "virtue." Virtue on the part of the beholder. Compassion. Awareness of our common humanity, our common dignity.
December 1, 2008 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP, I find it difficult to follow your virtue, humanity posture from a religious perspective.
I think the core issue for Christians is tbat homosexuals do not respect religion, but rather expect to be accepted in communities of faith by flinging the tenets of faith to the wind.
Christians believe that all sinners can be redeemed and accepted into the faith community if they repent and cease sinning. Homosexuals unlike other sinners, who seek alliance on the basis of faith do just the opposite. They insist rather that the religion accept them without them abiding by their tenets. They refuse to repent or seek redemption for what is clearly a sin. That is what makes it so easy/difficult for those who are deeply religious to not accept their sexual behavior in terms of 'humanity' and/or 'virtue'
No other group of sinners does that. Thieves, adulterers, prostitutes, liars, murderers...ALL repentent and ask for forgiveness and seek to change their behavior in accordance with the tenets of the Christian faith. Homosexuals alone, do not.
So, rationally it is inconsistent for Christians to abide with the tenets of their faith to embrace a sinner who insists on sinning...not repenting.
Which is why I do not believe this can be won by appealing to humanity if folks are religious. Issues of faith are intractable because if you believe Mary was a virgin, you are not going to compromise on that. If you beleive that when someone sins they can be forgiven if they repent you are not going to compromise on that. To compromise means you yourself are not abiding by the tenets of the fate.
So, convincing folks of faith when you have fathers, rabbi's and ministers telling them this is a sin to vote for gay marriage...isn't going to work.
Heck, you have fathers this week telling catholics they need to go to confessional if they voted for Obama since he is not pro-choice.
December 1, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personally don't agree with the whole thrust of Blow's argument -- see my response to Thera above. It seems that the current stage of the marriage equality movement is a time of self-critical reflection and wide openness to new approaches -- which is why I was happy to see Blow offer a new perspective, even if I don't entirely agree.
You say that "Christians are not going to support gay marriage." I can only offer heaps of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. America's churches are changing and the evangelical movement is changing (and of course those two are not at all the same thing), and I think that the rigid correlation between church-goer and gay-marriage-opponent is eroding.
As far as black men's reluctance to "be gay" or turn their sexuality into a "lifestyle community," I think that speaks precisely to how gay activists like the HRC have failed in their campaigns. They have been implicitly marketing gay marriage as a part of a "gay lifestyle" -- and there are loads of people, white, black, bi, or gay, who want nothing to do with the "gay lifestyle" but still want to get married to the person they choose.
Also, I'm pretty sure the term MSM (which is at least as old as Kinsey) came into use simply because it's the accurate descriptor, not because of some specific reaction to black men's reluctance to identify as gay. Presumably the scores of straight-married white men who sleep with men would have the same ambivalence about responding to the question "are you gay," which simply means something quite different than "do you sleep with men?"
December 1, 2008 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kirsten, I agree that there are christian believers who do support gay marriage, and there are also catholics that are pro-choice; however, overall folks who are deeply religious and/or strong believers of catholicism will not support gay marriage or abortion.
With regards to the CDC's use of the term MSM you can go back and just about pinpoint when this began in the early 90's and there were several CDC directors who commented on how much difficulty they were having with black males identifying with gay. What that meant was that the CDC stats were saying there were far more heterosexual males acquiring HIV and the risk of such was less than half of one percent. Ergo, they had to change the questionairre, irrespective of whether Kinsey may have used the term, it was not mainstream scientific classification criteria until the advent of HIV.
While you are presuming white men would have the same difficulty...that is precisely the point that is being highlighted, they aren't. There was a bisexual box as well, for married white males. White males who are gay have no difficulty checking the gay box, black males associate gay with a homosexual lifestyle not just the gender of their partner, consequently they denied being gay. They also do not consider themselves bisexual. For black males their heterosexuality is tied much more so to their concept of masculinity. In short, acknowledging you sleep with men is not uncommon if you are a thug/ex-felon, saying you are gay or bisexual is not.
December 1, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a human rights issue - pure and simple. In the 19th century, people used the Bible as an excuse to justify slavery. Some groups still use the Bible to justify discrimination against women. Many groups today use the Bible to justify discrimination against gays. In my view all three are a bunch of hooey.
November 30, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink