Buttigieg Reluctantly Embraces his Barrier-Breaking Candidacy

Being the first in breaking barriers in any category can be difficult and leave one fighting stereotypes that others will force upon you even though you do not see them as defining you. Being one of the few, if not the first, openly gay attorney in the area where I live fifteen plus years ago was difficult and not something I really chose - I was forced from a firm for being gay as part of a law firm merger and then found myself more or less radioactive because I was gay when I tried to find a position with a new corporate law firm.  Ultimately, I had to launch my own firm and bide my time until minds changed in the region.  My rescuers, if you will, were largely members of the Hindu community who looked to my legal knowledge and my ability to take care of their legal needs rather define me by my sexual orientation (I was perhaps aided by the fact that the same elements in the region who hate gays also were and still are no fiends to Hindus).  

I say all of this because I get where Pete Buttigieg is coming from when he downplays that he is gay - much to the outrage of radical gays - and wants voters instead to focus on his intelligence and reasoned, analytical approach to issues.  Sadly, he faces an uphill task with black voters who, despite protestations to the contrary in survey after survey tend to be prove to be more homophobic than whites (I have black gay friends who continue to live largely in the closet for constant fear or rejection by their homophobic churches and families).  A piece in Politico looks at Buttigieg's balancing act and reluctance at being a barrier breaker.  Here are excerpts:  

[T]he moment when the candidate and his husband knew that Pete had made history was on Tuesday. They were together backstage at an early evening event in Laconia, N.H. Buttigieg was waiting to go on stage when the Iowa Democratic Party released the bulk of the caucus results, which now show Buttigieg with a one-delegate lead over Bernie Sanders.

“I remember him saying,” Buttigieg told me, “just to stop and think about what this would mean to so many kids that are peeking out of the closet door.”

This was not a story that Buttigieg offered up, but one I had to coax out of him. He likes to say that he’s “not running to be the gay president of the United States,” but rather “to be a president for everybody.” Several packed days on the campaign trail in New Hampshire have featured only a few moments when the history-making nature of his Iowa victory has shone through, most notably when he choked up during a town hall on CNN discussing how his candidacy might affect “a kid somewhere in a community wondering if he belongs or she belongs.”

But for the most part, the historical impact of a gay man winning Iowa has been something that has been thrust upon Buttigieg — by the media, by proud gay activists, by Chasten in that moment backstage — rather than something that he has boasted about.

In recent years there have been vastly different approaches to identity politics in the Democratic Party. Some candidates, like Barack Obama in 2008, have played down their race or gender or sexual orientation, knowing the media and voters who cared about it would play it up. Others have run definitionally as rooted in a specific minority community. The pattern has been that the first to have a realistic shot at breaking a barrier is more circumspect.

Buttigieg is in the complicated space of being a barrier breaker: He’s willing to celebrate and ruminate on the history when pressed, but being defined as a gay candidate is not part of his strategy to win.

When I first asked him if he’d thought much about it, he pivoted to familiar talking points about the race. “No, not really,” he said. “You know, we're very focused on the road ahead now and we’re in New Hampshire, it's a state that thinks for itself and doesn't want to be told what to do by Iowa or anyone else. So really we’ve just been keeping our heads down.”

Almost nobody predicted that Buttigieg would win Iowa. He was a distant third in polling averages and the conventional wisdom held that other campaigns, like Elizabeth Warren’s, had superior organizations. In hindsight perhaps it’s on the nose that the McKinsey guy would be the one to master caucus math. His campaign has frequently been compared to Obama’s and he relied on some of the same advisers who steered Obama’s caucus win with a relentless focus on unity and shared values, a gauzy concept that is often mocked by Buttigieg’s online detractors.

“Honestly,” he said, “I think it was mainly the vision that we're putting forward: this idea that we need to turn the page, that the answers are gonna come from outside Washington, that we needed to reach out to everybody who will have to be part of that majority that will defeat Donald Trump, in rural areas, suburban areas, urban areas, and calling everybody into that vision.
 [E]ven if he wins here, Buttigieg is unlikely to be rewarded with the quick consolidation of his party around him in the same way that Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 — two campaigns that knocked out their opponents by winning Iowa and New Hampshire — did. Those candidates had little to prove among non-white constituencies, but Buttigieg still faces deep skepticism.
 If he makes the turn into South Carolina with a pair of victories, or strong showings, he will be facing an unprecedented situation in which the early — overwhelmingly white — states picked the Democratic candidate who is the least popular among black voters, the most important demographic in the primaries.

Joe Biden, who is relying on limping into South Carolina with support from black voters intact, has been pillorying Buttigieg over his record on race. Buttigieg said he had a simple message to overcome the doubts, one that will be buoyed by the results in Iowa and (perhaps) New Hampshire by then: a relentless focus on electability.

“When I'm thinking about black voters in South Carolina,” he said, “I think a lot of that too is about wanting to know that we're putting together a campaign that can win. Nobody's feeling the pain of living under this president more than Americans of color. So many voters I talk to make clear that their top priority is defeating Donald Trump, and I think we have to demonstrate that.

Buttigieg’s rise is absurdly improbable. He has proven a lot of skeptics wrong and his theory of completely changing the psychology of voters in South Carolina by winning Iowa and New Hampshire can’t be dismissed. “We're now in the process of show versus tell,” he said.

At an event late in the day Saturday in Manchester, I ran into Andy Frank, one of Buttigieg’s fellow students at Harvard who was a year behind him (class of 2005). Frank had been in Iowa as an organizer for his old friend and saw the Buttigieg machine spring into action on caucus day and master the convoluted process.

“He always does his homework, Frank said. “He breaks down a problem and solves it.”

Are Some Blacks Seeking to Alienate Gay Voters?

One thing about today's Republicans for good or for bad is that they are unified and focused on defeating those they deem "other." Sadly, Democrats seem more concerned about infighting amongst themselves and alienating those who, in my view, should be their natural allies. A case in point is the rift between some blacks and their apparent quest to dish Pete Buttigieg.  The irony is that both blacks and gays have been subject to centuries of discrimination, much of it based on selected Bible passages, yet what ought to be a unifying experience of being denigrated and diminished by white heterosexual society has some arguing that only they are true victims of discrimination.  Never mind that gays, unlike blacks, continue to lack statutory employment, housing and health care non-discrimination protections in the majority of the states. What prompts me to say this is the attacks Buttigieg is under for saying that as a gay man, he knows about living with discrimination and, therefore, can empathize with the discrimination that blacks face.  True, white gays can often "pass" in society in a way that blacks cannot, but we do know the harm of discrimination.  I was fired for being gay and my whiteness did nothing to protect me. I've been screamed at and call "faggot' - ironically, mostly by blacks - and find myself hated by some simply for who I am.  Both gays and blacks need to remember that we have a common enemy: Donald Trump and today's GOP.  Thus, the concept of the enemy of my enemy is my friend should apply. The Washington Post looks at what I see as Buttigieg's good faith remarks that have been grasp by some as a basis for attacking him.  Here are highlights:

Mayor Pete Buttigieg has delivered a provocative response in recent days to those who challenge his empathy with black Americans: His experience as a gay man helps him relate to the struggles of African Americans.

That has angered some African Americans, who view it as an attempt by a privileged white man to claim a type of victimhood that is distinct from the black experience in America, even while others take the comments more favorably.

Oliver Davis, a black council member in South Bend, Ind., where Buttigieg is mayor, said that African Americans, unlike gay people, don’t have the option of “coming out” at their chosen moment — as did Buttigieg, who disclosed his sexual orientation after he had been elected mayor.

LGBT activists see something different in Buttigieg — a barrier-breaker from a group that has long faced bigotry and violence, a face of the latest struggle for inclusion. And while some successfully conceal their difference, say leaders of the movement for gay equality, that decision can come with its own steep costs.

Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom to Marry, which helped lead the fight for same-sex marriage, said Buttigieg’s message is not “an attempt to appropriate someone else’s experience.” Rather, he said, the mayor is saying that “because he, too, has had to deal with his own struggles, that has made him more aware of the need to connect with the struggles of others.”

That question — how to square Buttigieg’s privileges with the adversity that comes with anti-gay prejudice — is becoming sharper as the 37-year-old Afghan war veteran rises in the polls and scrambles for ways to connect with black voters. And it renews the issue of how Americans, of any background, will respond to the candidacy of an openly gay man, one who holds hands with his husband and publicly discusses his decision to come out.

Buttigieg has shot to the top of the polls in Iowa and is gaining strength in New Hampshire, two largely white states — but he trails badly in South Carolina, the first primary state with a sizable African American population. A recent poll gave him less than 1 percent support among black Democrats there.

The mayor’s current efforts to find common ground are prompting raw feelings, including his comments at the last Democratic debate when the question of race arose.

“While I do not have the experience of ever having been discriminated against because of the color of my skin, I do have the experience of sometimes feeling like a stranger in my own country, turning on the news and seeing my own rights come up for debate, and seeing my rights expanded by a coalition of people like me and people not at all like me,” Buttigieg said.

That drew a sharp response, including from Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), a presidential hopeful and the only black woman in the U.S. Senate.

“I think Kamala had a point, and I understood what she was saying,” the Rev. Al Sharpton, the civil rights activist, said in an interview, though he added that Buttigieg had been misunderstood.

He said Buttigieg is doing his best to reach out. “He’s evolving,” Sharpton said. “Do I think he’s where he needs to be? No.”

The prospect of tension between the black and gay communities worries some people in both groups. “Can’t y’all stop this mess?” Alvin McEwen, a black LGBT activist from South Carolina, recalled thinking to himself amid the furor following Buttigieg’s comments.

“No group wants to have the autonomy of their narrative taken by another group,” McEwen said. “But it also typifies how both communities want to grab on to power and don’t want to listen to each other.”

Asked about the comments during his recent campaign swing in western Iowa, Buttigieg said he was not trying to compare the black and gay experiences, only to say that he is driven to fight for African Americans the way others have fought for him.

“Having seen that, having seen how that alliance can make an impact, makes me reflect on how I can turn around and make myself useful, not only to the LGBT community but to people whose life experiences are very different,” he added.

“Let’s not get caught up in who understands discrimination the most,” Barber said. “Let’s deal with the real issue, which is that the same entities that are against gay folks are the same entities who are against black folks, and that we ought to be united in fighting discrimination in any form it arises.”

Buttigieg from the outset of his campaign sought guidance in how to frame his gay identity when talking with black voters. Two weeks after announcing his run for president, he lunched with Sharpton at Sylvia’s, a famous restaurant in Harlem.

“He wanted to genuinely know how I felt the African American community would relate to an LGBT candidate,” Sharpton said. The activist told Buttigieg something other black leaders have also said — that the level of homophobia in the black community has been greatly overstated.

In Virginia's 2017 elections, Justin Fairfax, the black Lt. Governor, eked out victory by the narrowest margin of the three statewide candidates and was arguably put over the top by the LGBT vote. Had Virginia gays employed the mindset of Buttigieg's critics, perhaps Fairfax would have been defeated.   The focus needs to be on unity and fighting our common enemies.  

Pete Buttigieg Ascendant; Apologists for Black Homophobia

Prior post on this blog looked at the issues of (i) black homophobia presenting an obstacle to Pete Buttigieg, especially in the early primary state of South Carolina, and (ii) Buttigieg has jumped to the lead in Iowa based on the most recent polling. I return to the first topic because statistician wonk Nate Silver has put together data (see the chart above) that suggests that black homophobia is real even as two prominent black columnists in the New York Times and the Washington Post have tried to depict reporting on the reality of black homophobia as a lie promoted by "white liberals."  Here's a portion from the Times piece:

Reducing Pete Buttigieg’s struggle to attract black support solely to black homophobia is not only erroneous, it is a disgusting, racist trope, secretly nursed and insidiously whispered by white liberals with contempt for the very black people they court and need.

The Post piece isn't any better as this quote indicates: "all the armchair pundits — and actual pundits — perpetuating the lie that blacks are more homophobic than anyone else are smearing African Americans as a whole, . . . "  

Like it or not, Silver's data indicates that there IS a serious gap in support of LGBT rights among blacks as a whole compared to other racial demographics that actively vote in primaries.  Does this mean that all blacks are homophobic?  Of course not, but it does suggest that blacks' demand support for their rights that they are not willing to extend to others who are targets of society at large.  Here in Hampton Roads we recently saw this double standard writ large when Virginia Beach Human Rights Commissioner LaKendrick El who is black said horrible things about LGBT individuals as a class of people.  El was eventually forced to resign but in the process damaged the image of the Commission he had served on and possibly alienated some in the LGBT community from being supportive of black civil rights and/or black politicians.  Lurking behind such homophobia is religion, one of the most toxic forces in the world.  In the case of El, he is a Muslim and in the case of many blacks they belong to evangelical churches that are often anti-gay. 

The second topic merits further consideration for several reasons.  One is Buttigieg's fundraising prowess.  As Outwire757.com is reporting and the graph above indicates, here in Virginia, Buttigieg has raised more money - in some cases far more money - than any of the other Democrat presidential primary candidates.  This, combined with the recent Iowa poll results have made Buttigieg a target for his rivals and their supporters as explored by a piece in Vanity Fair:

Pete Buttigieg entered the 2020 race as a longshot. But the 37-year-old South Bend mayor has since demonstrated exceptional staying power, captivating moderates and many in the donor class, and establishing himself as part of the top tier of candidates. Now, he’s doing more than surging in polls; he’s starting to lead them. 

While that surely sends a jolt through the other Democrats vying for the party nod, it has also sounded alarms among Republicans. “He’d be a fresh face with a message of unity and a more traditional Democratic program that’s not as scary to suburbanites,” Karl Rove told Axios Monday. Some top Trump advisers are reportedly worried that Buttigieg is “more talented than Joe Biden” and “will be harder to brand as a leftist radical.”

 

Buttigieg’s star has risen in tandem with increasing concern among the party establishment that Biden is carrying too much baggage to defeat Donald Trump, and that Warren and Sanders are too far left. Buttigieg has appealed to the party’s moneyed centrists by taking a middle-of-the-road approach, relying less on a bold agenda and more on soaring rhetoric evoking Barack Obama’s calls for unity.

 

Such appeals have earned him large crowds, growing support, and the attention of big donors. But they’ve also rankled other Democrats . . . . Many of Buttigieg’s detractors view his approach as an inadequate response to an openly corrupt president who’s left some Americans feeling uniquely vulnerable. He’s invited serious questions about his ability to tackle those issues, struggling to make inroads among black and minority voters.

That could weigh Buttigieg down in the early primary state of South Carolina. But a win in Iowa, the first contest of the Democratic primary, could deliver him significant momentum, forcing the political world to take him seriously, and potentially damaging the campaigns of the other leading candidates. A Buttigieg victory, after all, would raise questions both about Biden’s electability—his primary selling point—and the electorate’s appetite for the progressive visions of Warren and Sanders. With plenty at stake, Buttieg may start getting the frontrunner treatment—particularly at Wednesday night’s Democratic debate.

Where all of this goes, nobody knows.  That said, if the black community displays homophobia towards Buttigieg, they may well undermine support for their own cause among some in the LGBT community and turn a situation where two groups that should be allies find themselves something less and as a result are less cohesive and effective at creating much needed change.  Trump and Republicans need to remain the focused enemy.

Why Pete Buttigieg Isn't Going Away

Republicans have one advantage over Democrats: their base is far less diverse and is united by its racism and religious extremism - plus a dose of severe greed among a significant portion of the wealthy. Democrats in contrast have a diverse base that often agrees on little with some elements easily manipulated and played for fools by Republicans and right wing religious leaders who cherry pick bible passages to induce low information voters (especially black voters) to either (i) vote for candidates that will further the GOP's white supremacist agenda, or (ii) stay home from the polls in a funk and by default cast a vote for anti-black Republicans.  A case in point: a recent Facebook exchange where a black male said he could never vote for Buttigieg since he is gay implying he'd stay home and allow white supremacist champion Donald Trump to be re-elected if it came down to that choice.  Talk about acting against one's own best interest.  Of course, this same individual demands that gays support his civil rights. This is but one example of the divisions within the Democrat base.

Where the Democrat nomination ultimately goes remains unknown, but one thing appears clear for now: Buttigieg is not going away any time soon.  A piece in The Atlantic looks at the next phase of Buttigieg's unlikely campaign.  Here are highlights:

We’ve reached an odd moment in an odd Democratic-primary race. With less than 100 days until the Iowa caucuses, former Vice President Joe Biden is struggling to hang on to his lead in the polls and is short on cash. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is making some people nervous that she’ll be Hillary Clinton and George McGovern rolled into one, and that nominating her means throwing the election to Donald Trump. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is recovering from a heart attack, and some observers believe that he has reached his ceiling of support. And while many voters keep saying they haven’t made up their minds yet, 14 other candidates are trying to convince voters and themselves there’s still a way to pull it off.

And then there’s Buttigieg. Several top Democratic officials who are not backing any candidate, as well as some operatives who are, have told me in the past two weeks that there’s a spot for him, but that the nominee can’t be him. They say the same things: He’s too young, too inexperienced, and unable to draw support from African American voters. They worry about the question that keeps coming up in focus groups and that reporters are beginning to ask: whether he’s struggling to win people over because he’s gay.

In Rock Hill, South Carolina, last weekend, I asked people at a Buttigieg town hall whether they thought he was ready to do the job. “Have you ever listened to him speak? He’s got brains, he’s got class, he’s got poise,” Chuck McKinney, a retired carpenter who’d driven in from Lake Lure, North Carolina, told me.

This is the point in the 2008 race when Barack Obama began an ascent that never stopped. He broke out at the Iowa Democratic Party dinner in November 2007.

Buttigieg’s campaign has leaned into the Obama comparisons for a while. On Wednesday, his team sent an email to supporters from Larry Grisolano, a consultant who worked for Obama and has been on Buttigieg’s campaign since the summer: “Pete’s campaign this year is rekindling the same excitement I felt at this time in 2007,” he wrote.

And notice how Buttigieg delivers his big finale on the stump these days: “I know hope went out of style,” Buttigieg said in Rock Hill on Saturday. He asked the crowd: “Do you have a sense of hope to bring about change for our republic?”

He’s a young veteran and a polyglot from the Midwest talking about a record of accountable local government. He is strangely fit for this political moment, but he’s also fitting himself for it constantly.

But the core brilliance of Buttigieg’s campaign is making the carefully planned seem nonchalant, like he’s ambling when in fact he’s in the middle of a plié. Every sentence is precisely arranged, the words weighted, playing off ideas like faith and security and freedom. Operatives on other campaigns grumble that he’s a construction, a “celebrity” who wows reporters looking for the hot new thing, but it’s working.

When I asked how his whopping total of 19,506 votes between two mayoral races could actually win a presidential election, he called that “an exquisitely Washington mind-set.” When asked whether he’s the epitome of white, male privilege, he turns it back with, “When it comes to identity, I am very mindful of the privileges that go with being white and being male. I also have the experience of belonging to a category of people in America that would have been assumed to be effectively ineligible for the presidency.”

[T]here’s the latest line that he appears so eager to push, he hit it twice at the October Democratic debate and has repeated it at nearly every recent public appearance: “I want you to picture what it’s going to be like, what it’s actually going to feel like in this country, the first day the sun comes up after Donald Trump has been president,” he said on the debate stage in Ohio. “It starts out feeling like a happy thought; this particular brand of chaos and corruption will be over. But really think about where we’ll be: vulnerable, even more torn apart by politics than we are right now.”

All the more reason not to go with Buttigieg, his doubters say. . . . Aha! Buttigieg says: Now is his time. Now more than ever, in fact.

“Look, they blew everything up, which means that there is a chance to build something new and better on the rubble,” Buttigieg said. “I mean, not to over-dramatize it, but I think about areas where buildings have been destroyed in the world, and then architecture of a new kind flourishes.”

He was an intelligence officer stationed in Afghanistan; he rarely ventured outside the wire, and mostly guarded transports when he did. “My vehicle, to my knowledge, was never targeted,” Buttigieg said, already preparing to turn it into the point he’s making. “So I don’t go around acting like I was out in the Korangal Valley. I’m somebody who did my part. But I think it’s an important contrast to draw with somebody who avoided doing his part when it was his turn.”

Over the past few weeks, Buttigieg has not-so-subtly presented himself as a Biden alternative. Sitting in a coffee shop in Concord, New Hampshire, in April, Buttigieg told me he didn’t think going deep on policy was a priority. He brought up an economic-development plan he wrote when first running for mayor that he said maybe a dozen people actually read. In September, he released his “Medicare for All Who Want It” plan, which has a policy paper behind it, but is basically appealing wordplay to get a message to people who will never read the whole thing, which is most people: “I’m not for eliminating private plans,” he said, “so I’m glad that we found a way in a headline to explain it.”

“He’s got workable ideas,” says Sherre Kearn, who works for the state government in Columbia, South Carolina, and had driven up to Rock Hill to hold a big Buttigieg sign last weekend. She says she voted for Sanders in the 2016 primaries because of his focus on health care, but now she’s backing Buttigieg because she thinks he’s talking about practical solutions to health care.

Buttigieg has been accused mostly by Sanders and Warren supporters of tacking to the center in the past few weeks, with accusations that he came in bold when there was nothing to lose but now wants to come across as acceptable when winning is theoretically in sight.

He had $22 million on hand at the end of September, and the money keeps coming in, but he’s still a long way from first place, and always has been. And many political veterans believe that if somehow Buttigieg does make it to a two-way race with Warren, he won’t make it further than that, given his inability to attract the African American voters that would really make him the Biden alternative, given that they have been his backstop.

Buttigieg makes this next point because it’s self-serving, but it also happens to be true: Each of the four Democratic presidents since World War II (not counting the two who took over for dead men) were young and inexperienced: John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obama. Candidates who get called “presidential,” Republican or Democrat, tend not to become president at all.

Trump has already made an issue of Buttigieg looking young enough to get carded, and never having done much. Buttigieg welcomes that.

“He might make it about age and experience, but fundamentally, that’s an argument about judgment and wisdom,” Buttigieg said. “And I think in a judgment and wisdom contest, this president’s on pretty shaky ground.”

He has another line he uses often, about how if there aren’t the kind of big changes he says his presidency would bring about, then the American experiment could unravel.
How close to the brink does he think we are?  “Closer than we think,” he said.

Black Homophobia - and Hypocrisy - Again Rears Its Ugly Head

Unfit for his position - LaKendrick Coburn El.

This blog has addressed this topic in the past and two recent events have prompted me to address it again.  The issue?  Black homophobia and the double standard that some - and I stress the word "some" - in the black community apply to others, gays in particular.  On the one hand, these individuals demand that others, including the gay community, support their civil rights, disavow racial bigotry and condemn racial discrimination, yet refuse to extend similar support to the civil rights of others and refuse to condemn homophobia - something that remains far too rampant in the black community and which is skillfully played by anti-gay white supremacists such as those at The Family Foundation here in Virginia, and groups like Family Research Council at the national level to induce blacks to vote against their own best interests by playing the anti-gay card and/or appealing to ignorance based religious belief.  

The first involves shockingly homophobic Facebook posts by Brother LaKendrick Coburn El, a member of the Virginia Beach Human Rights Commission, in which he described homosexuality as a “mental illness” and “abomination.”  WAVY TV reported on these toxic statements.  One such post read that “Men trying to be women and women trying to be men is really confusing our children and I’m tired of seeing this nonsense promoted to our children.” Kenick El went on to write “Homosexuality is an abomination to the Human Race.”  In a typical dodge by bigots like Kenick El, while refusing to return multiple requests for comment from WAVY 10 On Your Side, he wrote on his Facebook that his views were written on his “personal page” and “express my personal views.”  Kendick El appears clueless to the reality that when he accepted appointment to the Human Rights Commission, he assumed certain responsibilities for ALL citizens and forfeited his ability to express his "personal opinions." If he wants to denigrate the rights of others, then he needs to get off the Commission. He doesn't get to have it both ways. Neither do others in the black community who push a double standard.  You want my full support, I expect nothing less in return. 

The second instance involves the findings of internal focus groups conducted over the summer by Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign that reveal that Buttigieg may face a struggle with African-American voters in South Carolina because of his sexual orientation.  Applying this bigoted (and, in my view, hypocrisy fraught) standard, no gay - or non-black for that matter - should vote for a black candidate.   A piece in Metro Weekly looks at the bigotry and homophobia still so pervasive in some portions of the black community.  The irony, of course, is that this homophobia fuels black men "being on the down low" - and there are LOTS of them - which has been a major cause in the spread of HIV/AIDS to black women.  Here are article highlights:

Internal focus groups conducted over the summer by Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign reveal that the South Bend, Ind., mayor may struggle with African-American voters in South Carolina because of his sexual orientation.

In a 21-page report, the Benenson Strategy Group, which conducted the focus groups with black self-identified Democratic voters in South Carolina, noted that “being gay was a barrier for these voters, particularly for the men who seemed deeply uncomfortable even discussing it…. [T]heir preference is for his sexuality to not be front and center.”

While the report finds that Buttigieg’s sexual orientation is not a “disqualifier” for those voters, some participants questioned why Buttigieg has bothered to bring up or acknowledge his sexuality or his marriage to his husband, Chasten.

“That’s not my thing but I wouldn’t want to know that as a candidate,” one female participant under 40 said. “Too much information.”

Other voters are concerned whether Buttigieg’s sexuality could be a detriment when dealing with foreign leaders who represent countries where homosexuality is illegal or frowned upon.

Of all members of the focus group, older women (those ages 40 to 65) were the most capable of moving past Buttigieg’s sexual orientation, but even they preferred that he not emphasize it as much.

The focus groups found that most voters in all subgroups were able to get past Buttigieg’s sexual orientation, due in part to his demeanor and speaking style, which some compared favorably to Obama. But they expressed the need to see significant endorsements from prominent African-Americans, which would be more helpful in convincing them that “other” people won’t have a problem with Buttigieg’s sexual orientation and that it wouldn’t become an issue in the general election.

I'm sorry, but to those who wish he had not brought up his sexual orientation I ask, what planet are you living on?  Do they seriously believe that his opponents and/or Republicans will not bring it up? 

Is Black Homophobia a Myth?

In the Hampton Roads area some of the most reliable minions of the anti-gay efforts of The Family Foundation ("TFF"), arguably Virginia's most powerful hate group which the Southern Poverty Law Center has yet to formally certify as  a hate group, are the leaders of black churches.   Seemingly oblivious to the white supremacist roots of TFF, these religious leaders are lead around like trained circus dogs by Victoria Cobb and her, in my view, evil compatriots who want a white Christian theocracy.  Bearing out this reality is a black friend who remains terrified of coming out to his church going parents who has said to me time and time again (we have a discussion about his need to bite the bullet and come out every few months) that I don't grasp how anti-gay the black community is in this area. Despite such concrete examples of black homophobia, a piece in Think Progress written by a blogger friend attempts to make the case that black homophobia is a myth.  I am not sure where the cited survey was conducted, but the support for same sex marriage and non-discrimination laws among black respondents is lower than the general support levels in Virginia. My take away is that the LGBT community still has a great deal of work to do with the black community. Here are article excerpts (I'd love to know what readers think):

For many years, there has been a myth that African Americans are more likely to be homophobic and thus more likely to oppose advances for LGBT equality. Conservatives have even tried to leverage this supposed wedge to slow the progress of equality. A new survey, however, not only debunks the myth, but suggests that the black community is one of the LGBT community’s strongest allies.

After California passed Proposition 8, a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, The Advocate magazine asked on its cover, “Gay Is The New Black?” Following the lead set by Dan Savage in his “Black Homophobia” post the day after the 2008 election, the cover story relied on exit polls from the election that seemed to suggest that even though black voters largely supported Barack Obama for president, they also largely supported Prop 8.

This mythical divide between the two communities has persisted in the years since, despite the fact that the Prop 8 numbers were later debunked. Just last year, for example, writer Michael Arceneaux called out Lee Daniels for his claim that his television show Empire would “blow the lid off homophobia” in the black community, when it actually seemed to be reinforcing the myth. “Blacks are not the X-Men of anti-gay bigotry,” he wrote. “We don’t have some superior level of homophobia compared to other groups.”

Opponents of LGBT equality have, in turn, tried to capitalize on the supposed black/gay divide. A 2009 National Organization for Marriage (NOM) strategy memo revealed a blatant attempt to “drive a wedge between gays and blacks” by convincing black people not to see same-sex marriage as a civil right.

PRRI’s massive survey focused on three general questions: support for marriage equality, support for LGBT nondiscrimination protections, and support for “religious refusal” exemptions — allowing businesses to refuse service to LGBT people based on their religious beliefs.

Support for marriage equality was a bit low among Black Protestants, with only 38 percent supporting and 54 percent opposing. But on the other two measures, Black Protestants overwhelmingly supported LGBT equality. They favored nondiscrimination laws 64-31, and on the question of religious refusals, black respondents actually opposed exemptions at higher rates than any other racial group, including white respondents.

As it turns out, marriage equality and nondiscrimination protections are simply two very different questions for black respondents. For example, among black Protestants who oppose same-sex marriage, a 51 percent majority still favor LGBT nondiscrimination protections — albeit not quite as strongly.

Dr. Robert Jones, CEO of PRRI, told Think Progress that even on the question of marriage equality, black Protestants are more ambivalent than white evangelical Protestants, who oppose same-sex marriage at much higher rates. On LGBT nondiscrimination protections and religious refusals, their support flips. “I think that’s about really their own experience with discrimination,” he explained.

“The thing that African Americans and evangelicals have in common is a very strong connection to religion and particularly religion that has a fairly literal view of the Bible. They have high levels of religious attendance and fairly traditional religious beliefs, and I think that leads to some ambivalence on the issue of marriage equality.”

But on nondiscrimination, there’s a real “parting of the ways,” he said, “where an experience as a racial minority is informing and influencing their views on these issues that it just doesn’t among white evangelicals.”

The Supreme Court established marriage equality nationwide, but 28 states still offer no statewide nondiscrimination protections.

Wilson agreed, pointing out that the work that needs to be done is the same across the board. “The state of homophobia within the black community is only a reflection of the broader American culture, which finds itself in a continuous evolution in favor of the demands that define the LGBTQ equality movement.” He hopes that increased visibility of LGBT people will continue to advance acceptance and inclusion.

Saying that blacks are less extreme in their views of gays than white evangelicals doesn't, in my view, magically make the black community an ally of the LGBT community. Until the embrace of ignorance and bigotry that goes hand in hand with more fundamentalist forms of Christianity prevalent in the black community is defeated, black homophobia will not be a myth.  Yes, things ate better, but there still is a long way to go. 

CDC: Half of Gay Black Men Will Get HIV; Where Are the Black Churches?

click image to enlarge

One of the subjects of my frequent venting episodes is the crisis going on in the black community with HIV infection and the fact that - at least in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia - the black churches and pastors are an obstacle to remedying the tragic situation.  Now, a recently released study by the Center for Disease Control ("CDC") that helps to quantify just how bad the crisis is in fact. As the image above shows, black men who have sex with other men have a 1 in 2 chance of contracting HIV/AIDS.    White gay men in contrast have a 1 in 11 chance of contracting HIV/AIDS.  But the problem is not limited to black men.  The same study found that black women have a 1 in 48 chance of contracting HIV/AIDS while among white women, the chance is 1 in 880.  Why the huge disparity?  In my view, it is simple.  The black community overall - and black churches and pastors in particular - remains extremely homophobic.  The result is men "on the down low" who secretly have sex with other men, often without engaging in safe sex practices, and those who should be tested failing to do so because of their fear of being discovered and the stigma that attaches in that community.  The other find?  That the risk of HIV/AIDS contraction is highest in the Bible Belt states.   Here are some study summary highlights:

A CDC study released in February 2016 provides the first-ever comprehensive national estimates of the lifetime risk of an HIV diagnosis for several key populations at risk and in every state. Overall, the likelihood that an American will be diagnosed with HIV at any point during his or her life is now 1 in 99, an improvement from a previous study using 2004-2005 data that reported lifetime risk at 1 in 78. Despite overall progress, this study reveals stark disparities by race, risk group and geography.

By Race/Ethnicity, African Americans Are at Greatest Risk: While studies have shown that African Americans do not engage in riskier sexual behavior compared to Americans of other races/ethnicities, African American men overall are almost 7 times more likely than white men to be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetimes. The disparity among women is even greater: 1 in 48 African American women will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetimes, compared with 1 in 227 Hispanic women and 1 in 880 white women. Reasons for this higher lifetime risk include higher prevalence within the community, which poses an increased risk of infection with each sexual encounter; lack of access to healthcare; poverty; and stigma.

Lifetime Risk Is Higher for People in the Southern United States: People living in the South are more likely to be diagnosed with HIV over the course of their life than people in other parts of the country. States where risk is greatest include Maryland (1 in 49), Georgia (1 in 51), Florida (1 in 54), and Louisiana (1 in 56).

Bigotry and the embrace of religious based ignorance imposes a real harm on the lives of American citizens.  Sadly, the far right Christofascists care little or nothing about black citizens and, as some recent posts have indicated, many of them are racists who long for the days of Segregation and the Jim Crow laws. 

African Bishops Reveal Catholic Church's Hypocrisy

Anti-gay douche bag and hypocrite

With science increasingly confirming that sexual orientation is no more of a choice than eye color or skin color, the anti-gay stance of anti-gay religious denominations is becoming increasingly clear as to what it is: blatant discrimination conflated with a deliberate embrace of ignorance.  Hence why the Roman Catholic Church is only growing in backward and ignorant areas of the world such as Africa. Adding to the ugliness of such discrimination is the fact that homophobia in Africa was imported by Christian missionaries who rode rough shod over indigenous cultures.  Yet at the Vatican synod on the family, homophobic African bishops are demanding that they and their ignorant followers need “time to deal with” homosexuality and other “issues from our own cultural perspectives.”  That's akin to white Southerners demanding time to get over viewing blacks as inferior and wanting to maintain Jim Crow laws.  The Washington Blade looks at this batshitery.  Here are highlights:

Vatican Radio reported that and brutalize of Archdiocese of Accra said countries need “time to deal with” homosexuality and other “issues from our own cultural perspectives.” He also highlighted the need for “the dignity and rights of all God’s sons and daughters need to be upheld,” as Vatican Radio reported.

Palmer-Buckley’s comments come four days after he and other Catholic bishops began a three-week gathering in Rome during which they will vote on a document that specifically addresses the family. 

Leaked drafts indicate that it reiterates the church’s opposition to unions between gays and lesbians.

Davis Mac-Iyalla, a gay Nigerian man who received asylum in the U.K., was among the LGBT Catholics who gathered in Rome earlier this month ahead of the start of the bishops’ meeting.

Mac-Iyalla on Thursday noted to the Washington Blade the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of Nigeria has supported anti-LGBT measures in his homeland, including a 2014 law that punishes those who enter into a same-sex marriage with up to 14 years in prison. 

Mac-Iyalla added African religious leaders should “stop colluding with governments in persecuting LGBT people.” 

If  Archbishop Palmer-Buckley wants the freedom to discriminate against and brutalize gays, then lets grant white supremacists the same rights. There is really no difference. Both bigoted mindsets arise from ignorance and a fear of those who are different, so Palmer-Buckley needs to support anti-black bigotry if he wants to support anti-gay bigotry.  The man is a disingenuous douche bag.