Ted Cruz

Is "Rampant" Black Homophobia Really a Thing? And What About Ted Cruz's Anti-Gay Marriage Stance?

|

Last night at the GLAAD Media Awards, Scandal star Kerry Washington spoke out against homophobia among African Americans. Receiving a "vanguard" award from GLAAD, which supports gay and lesbian rights, she said:

When black people today tell me that they don't believe in gay marriage… So, the first thing that I say is, 'Please don't let anybody try to get you to vote against your own best interest by feeding you messages of hate.' And then I say, 'You know people used to stay that stuff about you and your love and if we let the government start to legislate love in our lifetime, who do you think is next?'"

In a Daily Beast writeup of last night's speechifying, Stereo Williams recounts what Oscar-nominated director Lee Daniels had to say about black homophobia on a different occasion:

"Homophobia is rampant in the African American community, and men are on the DL," he said. "They don't come out, because your priest says, your pastor says, mama says, your next-door neighbor says, your homie says, your brother says, your boss says [that homosexuality is wrong]. And they are killing African American women. They are killing our women. So I wanted to blow the lid off more on homophobia in my community."

It's widely believed that blacks, who tend to be more religious, less educated, and less wealthy than the average American, are also more anti-gay. Religiosity, lower educational attainment, and lower income all correlate with being less tolerant of gay marriage, a proxy for anti-gay animus. But is it true?

Some indications that it is:

  • Last year, Pew Research found that just 42 percent of blacks favored gay marriage, compared with 53 percent of whites. In 2001, about one-third of each group favored gay marriage.
  • In 2008, exit polls initially found that black Californians voted 70 percent in favor of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage. Overall, the initiative passed 52 percent to 48 percent (and was subsequently invalidated by a court ruling). Latinos voted 53 percent in favor of it, while only 49 percent of Asians and whites voted to ban gay marriage. A later study of specific precincts found that 58 percent of blacks voted to ban gay marriage.

At least one indication that it isn't:

  • A 2012 Gallup report found that African Americans are much more likely to identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) than the average Americans. Some 4.6 percent of blacks call themselves LGBT, compared with 3.4 percent of U.S. adults overall.

As a 2012 article in The Blaze pointed out, reports that black voters in North Carolina had opposed gay marriage in a ballot initiative by a two-to-one margin were completely undocumented

Does any of this matter? In the long run, almost certainly not. Pew and everyone else finds that the younger you are, the less likely you are to oppose gay marriage. Broadly speaking, anti-gay animus is fading and there's no reason to believe that it will grow again any time in the future.

At various points in recent memory, social conservatives have sought to use gay marriage to create new political coalitions. For instance, in a 2008 memo, the anti-marriage-equality group National Organization for Marriage (NOM) talked of using gay marriage as a way of "driving a wedge" between liberals and black and Latino groups. That's almost certainly a failing strategy, especially when you consider that even among black protestants and white evangelicals support for gay marriage has doubled in the past decade.

Which brings us around to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the first Republican to jump officially into the race to be his party's nominee for president in 2016. If gay marriage is becoming more and more accepted by Americans of all colors and creeds, Cruz is trying to stand athwart history, yelling stop! Last fall, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to weigh in on various lower court rulings that expanded the number of states in which same-sex unions were legal, Cruz lashed out at a development that was "tragic and indefensible" and "judicial activism at its worst." From his official statement at the time:

The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures….

I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.

Traditional marriage is an institution whose integrity and vitality are critical to the health of any society. We should remain faithful to our moral heritage and never hesitate to defend it.

Here's an exit question: Based on simple analysis of the voting public (not to mention common decency), there's no reason to believe that any politician will gain votes from attacking marriage equality. But can a candidate overcome his anti-gay-marriage position to win higher office?

NEXT: Abortion Funding Battle Doomed Human-Trafficking Bill and Loretta Lynch Vote To Be Continued in April

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Please don’t let anybody try to get you to vote against your own best interest by feeding you messages of hate

    Translation: “Don’t leave the Democrat plantation.”

  2. “… if we let the government start to legislate love in our lifetime, who do you think is next?'”

    Interesting. What’s her position on polygamy?

    1. Or what would little Kerry think of a brother marrying his brother?

      I would guess little Kerry would be quite hateful of a mother marrying her sister and her daughter.

      Little Kerry should not be spreading such hate.

      (That mind-numbing charge of hate: Progs can be so freak’n shallow and juvenile.)

    2. So lomg as divorce laws are what they are, polygamy is not an issue. Marry more than one woman and sooner or later there is going to be a brutal game of tug-of-husband, and the husband will lose.

      1. So lomg as divorce laws are what they are, polygamy is not an issue.

        Partnership law has long figured out how to handle the exit of one partner, or the dissolution of a partnership with more than two members.

        I don’t see sorting out divorce as some kind of conversation-stopper with polygamy.

  3. You know, it would be nice if people started standing up for vegisexuals like me.

    1. You and Mrs. Wormer:

      [Otter and Mrs. Wormer are in the supermarket vegetable section]
      Eric ‘Otter’ Stratton: Mine’s bigger.
      [Marion looks questioningly at him]
      Eric ‘Otter’ Stratton: My cucumber. It’s bigger. I think vegetables can be very sensuous, don’t you?
      Marion Wormer: No, vegetables are sensual. People are sensuous.
      Eric ‘Otter’ Stratton: Right. Sensual. That’s what I meant. My name’s Eric Stratton. People call me Otter.
      Marion Wormer: My name’s Marion. People call me Mrs. Wormer.
      Eric ‘Otter’ Stratton: Oh, we have a Dean Wormer at Faber.
      Marion Wormer: How interesting. I have a husband named Dean Wormer at Faber. Still want to show me your cucumber?

      1. I may be strange, but I could argue that Marion Wormer was the hottest woman in that movie.

    2. Were you the author of: The Gayness of Traveling Down That Lesbainian Biway of Trilateral, Hexagendered, Octaspecied Love.

    3. And just how did you get consent from that cantaloupe?

      Vegi Rape Culture!

  4. I’m totally OK with that being the goto stock image for all Ted Cruz articles going forward, it’s hilarious.

    1. Caption contest:

      “Would you fuck me? I’d fuck me. I’d fuck me so much.”

      1. “Prepare your anus”

      2. The star of the upcoming movie, To Rand Paul, Thanks for Everything! Teddy Newmar.

      3. “Oh please, I scare easy.”

    2. “I know you want to buy me an Appletini.”

  5. I don’t think Cruz’s stance on gay marriage is much of a deciding factor on voting for him or not.

    Unlike John, I do not think this is an issue of highest importance to most libertarians.

    I’m much more concerned about his views on the economy, the WOD, foreign policy, the militarization of police, the NSA, the IRS, taxes, state rights, asset forfeiture. I could name at least a dozen things that I would put ahead of gay marriage. If he were smart he’d just say ‘Look, I think marriage is between a man and a woman, but let’s leave it to the states to decide’. If he goes full SoCon on the issue it will hurt him some.

    1. I believe John’s point was that gay marriage was an issue of high importance to the Reason staff. Nick’s post seems to confirm it.

      As an aside, I don’t remember that Reason highlighted Rand Paul’s recent statement that gay marriage personally offended him. Or maybe I just missed it.

      1. Well, he said ‘to libertarians’, not the Reason writers. So that’s the reason for what I said.

        Rand needs to stop pandering to SoCons. I’ve been saying this for a long time.

        1. I think that at this point, socons would be happy if they felt the federal government simply stopped being out to get them.

    2. ” his views…state rights”

      You mean like how supports a constitutional amendment leaving gay marriage for the states to decide?

      “If he were smart he’d just say ‘Look, I think marriage is between a man and a woman, but let’s leave it to the states to decide’.”

      I thought he *did* say that. Of course, he also says he’s going to take some concrete legislative action to back up his views. Is that the offensive part?

    3. To be fair, that was the position Obama voters took. They didn’t care that he was against gay marriage, and elected him twice.

  6. If gay marriage is becoming more and more accepted, then gay marriage laws should be passed via the state legislatures, not the federal courts. Cruz’s criticism isn’t directed at the rightness or wrongness of gay marriage but the process through which gay marriage laws are being created. I would also disagree with Cruz on one important point. These judicial gay marriage decisions are not judicial activism. They are judicial fiat.

    1. That’s if you believe in rule of law.

      But that book on “libertarian” constitutional theory that Reason has been plugging is just judicial activism for libertarian values.

      Reason has made a clear shift to the Proggy Side in the last year.

      1. If a state legislature passed a law (unanimously, I would add) that outlawed printing an opinion that mentioned a given political party, and a judge overturned it and said “No, that law doesn’t exist anymore” would you call that judicial activism?

        Similarly, when a court finds that a right others enjoy (like two adults getting married and forming a family based on feelings of devotion and love) is being denied to a group of people, is it activism to say it’s a violation of their rights to deny them that one?

        What you call “judicial activism” I call “checks and balances” and making sure the majority can’t run over the rights of minorities by passing whatever laws they want.

        1. Your first example is not judicial activism.

          Your second could well be. It depends on the details. We deny lots of things that some people enjoy to other people, via licensing laws. Legislatures are allowed to make distinctions for licensing purposes amongst various groups of people. Some of them can be quite arbitrary.

          To me judicial activism mostly consists of judges doing legislation. This can include rewriting statutes that they think are unconstitutional (as opposed to merely striking them), as has been done with some marriage statutes.

          It can also consist of judges assuming legislative authority. I don’t think its clear by any means that judges have the authority to adopt a new definition of a word (like marriage) for legal purposes. Its a hard question, seriously it is, but one that is waved away by gay marriage activists.

    2. If gay marriage is becoming more and more accepted, then gay marriage laws should be passed via the state legislatures, not the federal courts. Cruz’s

      They have no such power. Never did.

  7. So is Cruz cruising for guys on the down-low? I didn’t bother to RTFA.

  8. Traditional marriage is an institution whose integrity and vitality are critical to the health of any society

    Was anyone talking about banning traditional marriage?

    1. I’m pretty sure there’s some feminazis who have.

    2. Traditional marriage *has* been banned. Couples are not allowed to unite themselves in lifetime marriage. Even if they both promise to “forsake all others” “as long as we both shall live,” neither party will be able to enforce that promise against the other.

      1. Traditional marriage *has* been banned. Couples are not allowed to unite themselves in lifetime marriage

        How many moons circle YOUR planet?

        1. He’s right. “Traditionally”, marriage was difficult to leave and backed up by force of law to the point of criminalizing adultery. “Traditionally” adulterers were even tortured as punishment. A cuckolded husband even had pretty close to blanket authority to kill anyone caught with his wife, along with the wife if he so chose.

          The “crime of passion” defense was in effect within most of our lifetimes.

          So no, not really from another planet. He’s just talking about another time – one not that far removed from the present time.

          1. Cyto
            He’s right. “Traditionally”, marriage was difficult to leave …

            He said precisely the opposite. And here again is my ENTIRE quote of his words,

            Traditional marriage *has* been banned. Couples are not allowed to unite themselves in lifetime marriage

            So no, not really from another planet. He’s just talking about another time – one not that far removed from the present time.

            On what planet did you learn to read? 🙂

    3. The thinking seems to be that gays are scooping up and converting straights. I’m not seeing it, but that’s what Cruz et al. are going with.

      1. What? I’m sure that’s sarcasm.

      2. I don’t think that bit of rhetoric is logically connected to anything. It’s just code for “We hate gays because of Jesus.”

  9. “From his official statement at the time:…”

    Sounds like Cruz would actually apply the 10th amendment here. The Horror!

    It seems like Reason is becoming as anti constitutional as the Progressive Theocracy – toss out rule of law and let the Feds enforce homogeneity whenever they disagree with the constitution as constructed.

    I’m for gay marriage, but I’m for rule of law more.

    1. Is there something unlawful, unprecedented, or unseemly about people taking their grievances to the courts and winning?

    2. Do you include the 14th Amendment in that rule of law?

      1. Its ancient history now, of course, but the legal argument for mandating gay marriage licensure is not the strongest by any means.

        It basically boils down to asserting that marriage means “any two adults” without regard to who can (re)define marriage for legal purposes.

        1. It basically boils down to asserting that marriage means “any two adults” without regard to who can (re)define marriage for legal purposes.

          At no time, in no way, does the constitution delegate ANY power over marriage to ANY level of government.

          1. That is because it doesn’t need to you fucking retard. It never mentions marriage. The states are given all of the powers that are not explicitly given to the Feds. it didn’t repeal state law. it didn’t touch any existing state law other than the ways explicitly mentioned and the powers given to the feds. Everything else remained the same.

            Michael, you are fucking idiot. I am sorry but tell your parents, their son died at birth.

            1. Why are you such a vulgar asshole?

              1. Tony|3.23.15 @ 11:38PM|#
                Why are you such a vulgar asshole?

                A disturbing percentage of Ron Paulistas are bullies. I think it’s because Ron’s view of the Constitution traces to Governor Orval Faubus — a bully who used Arkansas National Guard to defy Court-ordered desegregation — 9 black kids then eligible to register at Little Rock’s Central High school. 1957

                President Eisenhower sent in troops with orders to use force (if necessary) to defend the rights of only 9 black kids.

                Would Ron Paul do that? Or would he wave his arms, slide into that whiny voice of his and yell “rogue judges” several times?

            2. John is one of those RonPaul libertarians who believe states have power which never been delegated! Watch!

              John|3.23.15 @ 11:21PM|#
              That is because it doesn’t need to you fucking retard. It never mentions marriage.

              Then you’ve already lost. But let’s correct all your misunderstandings.

              The states are given all of the powers that are not explicitly given to the Feds.

              Nope. See the libertarian amendment, the 9th

              “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”

              I’ll walk you through it. The ninth defines TWO classes of fundamental rights.
              1) Rights enumerated (delegated) to federal in the Constitution.
              2) All other rights are retained by the people (never delegated)

              Ours is a government of delegated powers. That means unenumerated RIGHTS are superior to unenumerated powers.

              it didn’t repeal state law. it didn’t touch any existing state law other than the ways explicitly mentioned and the powers given to the feds

              What is “it?” Never mind. Doesn’t matter.

    3. Sounds like Cruz would actually apply the 10th amendment here. The Horror!

      Umm, the 9th amendment trumps the 10th. Always has.

      I’m for gay marriage, but I’m for rule of law more.

      And you oppose the Constitution.

  10. That photo tells you everything you need to know about Ted Cruz’s opinion of gay marriage.

    1. Based on that picture, I believe his position on gay marriage is ‘bottom.’

    2. He’s against gay marriage, ’cause he’s still playing the field and ain’t ready to get locked down.

  11. Lower class males, regardless to race, tend to exhibit more hyper-masculine “macho” behavior. There are all sorts of reasons for this, starting with deterring violent threats by other males. One of the ways they do that is by emphasizing their own heterosexuality, and one of the manifestations of that is displaying homophobic attitudes.

    So it would not be at all surprising if african americans, who are on average poorer, tended to also be more homophobic.

    I could also point out the homphobia that is rampant in Arabic cultures, where there’s still a lot of tribalism. Tribal life and street-gang thug life have a lot of features in common, especially when it comes to the men having to be extremely macho to be respected.

    1. In contrast, among senior corporate executives or attorneys, once they’ve escaped from poverty, they get much less macho and tend to conduct their business by way of group hugs and drum circles.

      1. Well they definitely don’t show up to business meetings wearing gold chains over their shirtless chests and then take everyone out to a strip club after.

        1. I wouldn’t be so quick on the strip club thing.

    2. I could also point out the homphobia that is rampant in Arabic cultures, where there’s still a lot of tribalism. Tribal life and street-gang thug life have a lot of features in common, especially when it comes to the men having to be extremely macho to be respected.

      I’m not sure I swing with this last part.

      You might check out: Gay Travels in the Muslim World

      Also, while not exactly analogous with your point, Feudal Japan was, for lack of a better word, about as “macho” as you can get as a culture, and yet homosexuality was a pretty well accepted practice. Samurai lords used to write long love-odes to their boy companions.

      1. Also, while not exactly analogous with your point, Feudal Japan was, for lack of a better word, about as “macho” as you can get as a culture, and yet homosexuality was a pretty well accepted practice. Samurai lords used to write long love-odes to their boy companions.

        Or Sparta. Arguably no civilized society ever had so much macho attitudes and they were very enthusiastic about hairy assholes.

        1. These ones are actually pretty good points. These days machismo definitely seems to go along with homophobia though. I would guess that in ancient Greece they didn’t associate gayness with feminine behaviors, but today when people think gay they think of “swishy” effeminate gay men. I know that’s not a universal gay thing, but in terms of how society thinks about it that’s the stereotype. So that might result in an anti-gay reaction in men who are trying project masculinity.

        2. Wait, is it not verboten to associate homosexuality with pederasty? Since that was that was what the those ancient cultures were practicing.

          1. Good question. My admittedly shallow understanding of Greek homosexuality is that it was generally grown men fucking teenage boys, and that they were not so complacent about grown men fucking each other.

            Could be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time today.

    3. I could also point out the homphobia that is rampant in Arabic cultures, where there’s still a lot of tribalism.

      I could also point out that “Arabic culture” is dominated by Islamic pronouncements about killing homosexuals or otherwise not tolerating their existence.

      1. You know who else?

  12. Based on simple analysis of the voting public (not to mention common decency), there’s no reason to believe that any politician will gain votes from attacking marriage equality.

    Huh, when did libertarians care about public opinion and being against “common decency”?

  13. I am pretty well sick of the constant equating of “Gay Rights” and racism. Although I really don’t care who you chose to have relations with so long as both are adults and both consent, this comparison is a load of horse shit.

    There is a fundamental difference between the two, one is often obvious to others, skin color, facial structure, etc. The other is visible only as behavior. This difference is massive and significant. One you have no control over, the other you have complete control over.

    The comparison to polygamy, is entirely appropriate in that both are behavior. If you choose to shack up with multiple partners who cares? BUT, like homosexuality, it becomes a different matter when you demand that society specifically approve of your behavior, and grant it financial benefits.

    If your position is that people with homosexual inclinations can’t help it, and therefore we must both allow and approve of it, will you extend this to pedophiles as well? Clearly they are as much born with this inclination as homosexuals are.

    The entire gay agenda has descended from equal rights, to special rights. Sick of it, done with it, shut up, go away.

    1. Live in California? There’s a petition for you to sign.

      1. Yep, the opinion that mjb expressed is EXACTLY like signing a petition to kill all of the gays…

      2. He probably already tried that.

        Got thrown out by the courts.

        Google Prop 8, since HyR won’t let me post the link.

    2. Re: MJBinAl,

      I am pretty well sick of the constant equating of “Gay Rights” and racism.

      Cultural Marxism means never having to say “I’m reasonable.”

      it becomes a different matter when you demand that society specifically approve of your behavior, and grant it financial benefits.

      I don’t see any difference between a group of people that claims disenfranchisement because of the color of their skin and a group of people who make the same claim under some other excuse. Both groups are seeking special treatment or favors from the state, always in detriment to individual rights (liberty and property).

      A gay couple has a right to a marriage the same way I have a right to an extended warranty – that is, neither of us have a right to either of those things. A marriage (the ceremony, the ritual) is always provided by someone else and since that person (or organization) is NOT your personal slave, you cannot have as a matter of RIGHT something YOU DON’T HAVE YET. By the same token, a black person does NOT have the right to MY SERVICES or GOODS just because he or she claims to have suffered a wrong in the past, either demonstrably or not. You can only have, as a matter of right, those things you already have, like your liberty, your life and your property.

      1. What about equal protection of the law?

        1. Equal protection is only implicated if marriage means “any two adults.” If it means “man and woman”, then it is not a violation of EP to deny licenses to gay couples.

          The question begged by the gay marriage activists and courts is, who gets to say what marriage really means?

          Not the voters, apparently, who have consistently rejected gay marriage in referenda. Not the legislatures, who consistently defined it as “man and woman.”

          I think gay marriage is a fine idea. I’m not quite so comfortable with courts doing what they’ve done around this issue.

          1. Considering you refer to being gay as a “sexual hobby,” I question your motives. Since you can’t deal with the fact that gay people not being allowed to get married (except those they have no interest in marrying) is a violation of equal protection, I think my questioning is valid. This is obviously not about judicial activism to you; you’re just too much of a coward to say what you really believe, a curious trait of social conservatives everywhere.

            1. Considering you refer to being gay as a “sexual hobby,” I question your motives.

              Question away. Its something people do for pleasure and to socialize. Sounds like a hobby to me, no different than BDSM or the like.

              I’m mostly being snarky.As for being a coward, you will note that I am taking an unpopular position with the pro-gay-marriage folks AND an unpopular position with the socons.

              Rather than questioning my motives, why don’t you address my thoughts?
              I think the legal analysis behind the EP argument for redefining marriage is fatally flawed. So answer my question: Who has the authority to redefine marriage, and on what basis?

              1. Almost all of the jurisprudence on the matter seems to disagree with your analysis, which you haven’t explained. You’ve asked the question who gets to define marriage. The answer is complicated. States establish individual marriage laws. The federal government, while not regulating marriage, defines more than 1,000 rights and responsibilities of married couples that differ from nonmarried ones. The Supreme Court furthermore has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right on at least 14 separate occasions.

                To recap: states define marriage for state purposes, the feds redefine it nationally, and the courts redefine it as a basic right. What gives them this authority? The good name of United States law as established by the constitution.

                Its something people do for pleasure and to socialize. Sounds like a hobby to me, no different than BDSM or the like.

                If that’s how you define your sexual, romantic, and married life, fine. Tell your wife what a great hobby she is.

              2. Who has the authority to redefine marriage, and on what basis?

                Wrong question. Who EVER had the power to define marriage at all. Hint: nobody.

          2. I think gay marriage is a fine idea. I’m not quite so comfortable with courts doing what they’ve done around this issue.

            That’s their job. Checks and balances. Who else can defend fundamental rights against an abusive legislature at any level?

            Neither voters nor any legislature has the power to deny or abridge fundamental human rights (aka Jefferson’s .unalienable rights endowed by a Creator)

      2. “A marriage (the ceremony, the ritual) is always provided by someone else and since that person (or organization) is NOT your personal slave, you cannot have as a matter of RIGHT something YOU DON’T HAVE YET.”

        This is not true. Traditionally, in Christian Europe, and as a matter of orthodox Catholic doctrine, marriage (as a sacrament) is confected by the parties marrying each other and does not arise through any external authority. The tendency toward carrying out every marriage with a formal ceremony under the direction of a priest was a reaction in response to the civil marriages done through the power of the state that came about with the protestant upheavals. Even then, there was no pretense that the priest was the source of any power or authority there. Under such a system, it would seem one does have a right to marry, in the same way as he has a right to contract, so long as he finds a willing collaborator. And this view is not entirely arcane and obsolescent, though I think it is fairly uncommon.

        1. For what it’s worth, it was explicitly taught this way in religion class when I was in Catholic school. Less explicit was a sense that any state meddling in marriage was distasteful if not downright abominable, depending on the speaker. In morality class, it was taught that there are situations in which even today it is preferable for a couple to marry each other without the supervision of a priest. It seems there was a specific span of time that was considered a reasonable delay to wait for a priest, and beyond that it was better to go ahead without one, but I don’t remember it.

          1. Limpee, one main reason for not being married by a priest is .divorce. My second wife had been divorced, Her brother was a parish priest. He stood right next to, and slightly behind, the mayor. After the mayor pronounced us man and wife, he stepped back, Father Mike stepped forward and gave — is it called a benediction?

            It was obvious the two had both participated in civil marriages!

    3. Oh boy, being gay is a choice, comparisons to pedophiles, and asking for government recognition of their marriage is a asking for a “special right” (when that is the exact opposite, as it is currently a “special right” limited to only straights). But sure you totally don’t care who consenting adults have relations with.

    4. I am pretty well sick of the constant equating of “Gay Rights” and racism.

      They’re both based on the same dishonest claims about the constitution — no difference at all between Ron Paul and Orval Faubus.

  14. Pew and everyone else finds that the younger you are, the less likely you are to oppose gay marriage.

    Despite the fact that the younger you are the less educated and poorer you are, which for some reason does not correlate with: “[…] blacks, who tend to be more religious, less educated, and less wealthy than the average American, are also more anti-gay.

    Either a theory explains reality or it doesn’t. There is NO way you can say the younger you are the more educated or wealthy you are – Economic law takes care of that without mercy. That means the younger you are the more ANTI-gay you HAVE to be.

    Either that, or you have to concede that your explanation why black Americans are more anti-gay is nonsense. Their bigotry has to be a cultural component and NOT something that stems from their lack of wealth or education. There are plenty of well-educated and wealthy bigots out there.

    1. Homophobia comes from religion. Poor people tend to be more religious. Religion is part of culture, so you’re right in a sense.

      1. Re: Tony,

        Homophobia comes from religion.

        You mean a religion like Marxism, perhaps?

        Poor people tend to be more religious. Religion is part of culture, so you’re right in a sense.

        There’s more to it that your simple sophistry,

    2. Stop oppressing me with that cisgendered, heteronormative logic!

    3. Did you just discover the idea of confounding variables?

  15. I don’t know that a higher percentage of blacks self-identifying as gay etc. is in any way inconsistent with blacks generally being less tolerant of alternative sexual hobbies.

    Just sayin’, is all.

    1. It’s not. Nick whiffed that one.

  16. How could a Libertarian have a problem with any two, five or twenty consenting adults having a legal marriage contract? Is there some kind of Bizzarro Libertarianism?

    1. “Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice LLC”

      1. Where’s Mallory?

    2. Baelzar-

      When I couldn’t marry my sister to collect her SS survivor benefits when she died?

      When my estate won’t get expedited probate because my partner is a canine?

      When my non-working cat doesn’t get me an income tax deduction- and lower tax rates?

      1. Dammit! EQUAL RIGHTS!!!

        Like almost everything in politics it’s about the money and the power. Take away the welfare state, the fucked up social engineering of the tax code, and accommodation laws and a huge chunk of the controversy just disappears.

  17. Homosexuality is a deadly perversion; however, since you’re talking about Negroes, here is my paen to Negro grievances:

    One particularly horrific aspect of the degradation of our society is the near deification of violent bums such as the deceased Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. The violent thug, Trayvon Martin, has songs done after him; skittle mosaics done in his likeness, and is spoken of reverentially at televised hollywood functions. The deification of Trayvon Martin in song and painting is reminiscent of the Nazis deifying their violent albeit murdered thug, Horst Wessel. Ernst Haffenstangle wrote a catchy song about Horst Wessel it was used to great effect by Ernst Rhoem’s Nazi SA.

    Since thugs are the big deities in America today just as the Nazi thug Horst Wessel was back in the Nazi days, I am following this trend by creating my own song about the thug, Trayvon Martin. Instead of calling it the Horst Wessel Lied, I am calling it the Trayvon Martin Lied and I recorded it to the tune of Horst Wessel Lied. So, without further ado, I present to our sick culture the Trayvon Martin Lied (if you have problem with the lyrics, I wrote them out below the youtube)

    The Trayvon Martin Lied

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here”

    1. Fuck off.

      1. I second that.

      2. You forgot “and die.”

  18. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens.

    Umm, the Constitution of which country would have state powers that were NEVER delegated?
    Is Cruz as full of shit as Ron Paul? Egad.

    1. Its called the 10th Amendment you fucking half wit.

      he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

      So year, state powers are not “delegated”. They are recognized by the constitution as prior to federal powers. This is why there is no general federal criminal or (wait for it) marriage law.

      People like you infuriate me. You come on here and drop some smug piece of derp about Paul and Cruz being full of shit when in fact you are the one who is stupid but makes up for it by being ignorant. You clearly don’t know anything about the Constitution other than what Salon told you. Do yourself a favor and go away and don’t come back until you are smarter.

      1. Marriage in US law = basic human right.
        Marriage as state law must be recognized according to full faith and credit.
        State laws are not prior to federal law in any sense, and of course are inferior to them in authority.
        The 10th amendment, well, I’ll use others’ words: “The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered.”

      2. Its called the 10th Amendment you fucking half wit.

        Which is trumped by the Ninth Amendment!

        So year, state powers are not “delegated”. They are recognized by the constitution as prior to federal powers. This is why there is no general federal criminal or (wait for it) marriage law.

        Yes, he said that!!! Government power is superior to fundamental human rights. Because Ron Paul says so That puts John and Ron Paul on a par with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini …

        You clearly don’t know anything about the Constitution other than what Salon told you. Do yourself a favor and go away and don’t come back until you are smarter.

        I know the Ninth Amendment. I’ll teach it to you. AGAIN.

        “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

        Umm, what are those “other” (rights) retained by the people? Be specific. And name your source.

        See, ours is a “government of delegated powers.” That means unenumerated RIGHTS (9th amendment) are superior to unenumerated powers (10th Amendment). That was Madison’s entire purpose for insisting on the 9th Amendment.

        Do you even realize that Ron Paul has you placing government force above fundamental human rights?

        Love and kisses,
        your favorite fucking half wit

  19. “I wanted to blow the lid off more”

    If the lid is blown off, it isn’t on the damned thing anymore. The forces exerted on the lid from the first blow render said lid unable to fit back on. You can’t blow something off more that isn’t there.

  20. Broadly speaking, anti-gay animus is fading and there’s no reason to believe that it will grow again any time in the future

    So Nick believes that Ron and Rand Paul have peaked.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.