I have two reactions to reading this WaPo columnist's comments.
First, if Sam Arora is wavering under this media firestorm, he must be hearing from hundreds of constituents who do not want him to vote for gay marriage.
Secondly, as someone married to an Indian-American, I find it interesting that the gay marriage machine appears to be re-focusing its attacks from Black Democrats who oppose gay marriage to an easier target: Indian-Americans.
Tiffany Alston appears now to be off the hook regardless of how she votes.
Update: Some folks seem to think I'm accusing critics of Sam Arora of racism. Weird. Racism requires animus or bias towards a race, which I never suggested... It would be absurd to imagine that the people going after Sam don't like Indian-Americans.
It is not absurd to imagine that picking a fight with important black Democrats would pick a fight in two core bases of the Democratic party and that it could be perceived as good to avoid that.
16 Comments
No Maggie. You are clearly playing the race card here. Sam is getting a lot of flack because folks feel that he betrayed them. It's an easy point for you to address. Why are you ignoring it?
Why the vitriol at Sam and not Tiffany? Both said they would vote for the bill, and both now have second thoughts after hearing from what is clearly a massive outpouring of objections for the people they represent.
That's my point.
Betrayed people. You mean when Obama says he believes marraige is between a man and a woman, then changes his mind???
If you are talking about DOMA, Obama never supported DOMA. He supported the repeal of DOMA. In August 2007, his campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said so. He held this position since 2004.
Arora, on the other hand, met with constituents and told them that he supported gay marriage.
a. mcewen wrote: "You are clearly playing the race card here."
You play the cards you are dealt, a. mcewen!
I have provided, in my comments in the pages of this Blog, solid proof of long standing, rampant, blatant racial discrimination by caucasian gays against gays of color. Such racial discrimination is part and parcel of the homosexual culture.
I have also documented the war on African-Americans being waged by homosexual activists because of Black's Bible based, Chrisitan views regarding marriage and their willingness to take political action on the issue.
Homosexual activists try to portray their cause as part of the civil rights movement and like to toss out the name of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. The civil rights movement and Dr. King addressed nothing but race based issues.
So don't do a knee jerk reaction and shout, "Race card! Race card!", whenever a racial issue is brought up. There are plenty of valid, legitimate concerns regarding race associated with the politics of marriage issues.
a. mcewen:
See my comment which isn't visible here.
I would support your position, Maggie, but I can't because my comments dont' show up. Someone at NOM must be mistaking me for a homosexual "marriage" advocate.
Well, I guess I'll take my leave yet once again. It would appear that NOM is still having difficulty accepting comments from supporters.
mistake you for a homosexual "marriage" advocate? Don, I hope that you are not implying that NOM specifically excludes comment from this blog which doesn't suit its point of view.
"Someone at NOM must be mistaking me for a homosexual "marriage" advocate." This is unbelieveable...except to those of us who attempt to tell the truth.
Any reasonably respectful comment is welcome for debate, from my point of view. Traditional marriage can stand on it's own merits and there is no reason to shy away from any opinion or comment on the subject.
Let me try this again.
a. mcewen:
You play the cards you are dealt and bringing up a race issue doesn't automatically mean that the "race card" is being played.
There are volumes of first person accounts of racism among homosexuals. There has also been a concerted attack by homosexual activists on the African-American community.
These are legitimate, well founded, well documented issues and do not constitute a disingenuous attempt to capriciously inject race into the debate.
Don,
in this case, the "race card" was wrong because it wasn't Arora's race which caused anger but the fact that he campaigned for gay marriage and took donations on that issue. And then he backtracks.
And on the other case, there are plenty of cases of African-Americans attacking lgbts. Wouldn't it be nice if the two groups got along. It would make things easier for folks like myself who happen to be both gay AND black.
Maggie, your update makes no sense. This is your comment:
"Secondly, as someone married to an Indian-American, I find it interesting that the gay marriage machine appears to be re-focusing its attacks from Black Democrats who oppose gay marriage to an easier target: Indian-Americans."
Your comment is in fact implying that those angry at Arora are doing so because of racism. Your bizarre backtracking only makes it worse.
Well, a. mcewen, you are using your case to justify your case!
You called it a "race card" and in your subsequent arguments you assume that your race card argument is valid when I have challenged it, LOL!
African-Americans attacking LGBT's is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
No, Alvin, it would not be "nice" if the two groups got along if that comes at the cost of traditional marriage.
I know that you are African-American, Alvin. It's not like you are unknown, LOL! Unfortunately for you, the preservation of marriage is more important than is making things easier for you personally. Sorry!
Maggie's comment is perfectly valid in light of the facts of well documented, long standing, pervasive racial dsicrimination by homosexuals, and the assault upon the African-American community by homosexual activists. Indian people are people of color. Since we know that homosexuals discriminate against Blacks, Asians and Latinos, why would they suddenly make an exception to their discriminatory behavior for people of color from India?
I appreciate it don. but i would love to hear maggie reply.