Whining and clergy

I started to reply to Tagryn in the comments section, but it got to be so long, I figured I might as well respond in a separate post.

First, the black clergy have historically been a powerful political force in the African American community, and still are in places like Philly (where you can't win a major political seat without the backing of the main black clergy organization). They may not have the same "pull" in DC anymore because of gentrification, but Berry's smart to at least acknowledge his community's feelings on the matter: he is a politician, after all.

He's not being smart, here. He thinks he is, but it's going to blow up in his face.

Unfortunately, Barry is in absolutely no danger whatsoever of losing his seat. If his Ward 8 constituents can overlook the sheer tonnage of things about Marion Barry one would have to overlook in order to cast a vote for him, joining a unanimous vote of the city council to recognize gay marriage isn't going to cost him his job.

And even if there was a chance it would? Since when does electoral calculation make it okay to support bigotry? Every other member of the council (and Fenty) willingly put themselves in the crosshairs of angry interest groups because they knew it was the right thing to do. So what's Barry's excuse?

Second, without the black clergy, the civil rights movement in the '60s doesn't happen. They formed the bulk of the organization and leadership which made MLK possible.

So? That has jack to do with what's happening now. If the current black clergy had their way, the current civil rights movement wouldn't be happening. They don't get to dine out on MLK forever.

So you'd think they'd be a natural group to get on board for this, but there's been virtually zero outreach to the black clergy (or the African American community at large, for that matter) on the part of the gay marriage movement; instead, they've been getting vitriol and disdain like we see in this post.

Let's be very clear: This is not an issue where there can be legitimate difference of opinion, like with abortion or gun control or the economy. There's no defensible reason to be against gay marriage. There's bigotry and...bigotry. And that's about it.

But even if that wasn't the case, what sort of outreach do you envision? Gay marriage is a zero sum game. Either it happens or it doesn't, with no room for compromise. Based on the vitriol and disdain we saw from the black ministers at the Wilson Building this week, I don't see much of an opening for constructive dialogue, do you?

Or to put it another way, exactly how does one reach out to something like this?

As long as they're treated like enemies, instead of potential allies, they'll continue to be defensive and act like enemies. Considering how they've been approached - again, see above post - its hard to blame them. If I printed this out and took it to a minister, think it'd be very persuasive to get him on board?

First, go ahead and print it out and take it to a minister. I'd really appreciate it.

Second, they're not potential allies. They've made their position abundantly clear. They're against gay marriage. Again, what room do you see for compromise here? If you're an anti-gay minister, what can I possibly say to you to get you to change your position?

The answer, of course, is nothing. That's why neither the gay community nor the city council has show much interest in approaching them like they're potential allies. It's a waste of time.

But hey, keep on underestimating them and telling them they need to just shut up. How's that been working so far?

Well, by a 12-1 vote, gay marriage is now recognized in the District of Columbia. I'd say it's working pretty fucking good.