Evidently, gays do blame blacks for the failure of Prop. 8

Recently I noted that I didn't think gays would protest black churches:

Protest black churches? *snicker* That will never happen, they don't have the guts to do it. It's easier to beat up the Mormons, no one will call them bigoted for doing so (except maybe conservatives and religious people who understand what's going on here -- the left doesn't want us to bring out religion into the voting booth).

And as one of the commenters, ar, noted:

i doubt that the activists are stupid enough to create a rift between two democratic blocks. there are other ways for gays and blacks to discuss the issue. they have way more in common than they have in differences. without the support of the lds church, prop 8 wouldn't have passed either. i'd say that protesting the lds church is a good start. maybe the homophobic mormons there can take the time to get to know some of the protesters.

Um...it appears that ar was way too optimistic concerning the intelligence of the gay community, here's what blacks experienced at the protest rally at the Mormon temple:

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU N*, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a F*, I will call you a n*. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the n* better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

[...]

Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, "Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!" A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were "very disappointed with black people" and "how could we" after the Obama victory. This was stupid for them to single us out because we were carrying those blue NO ON PROP 8 signs! I pointed that out and the one of the older men said it didn't matter because "most black people hated gays" and he was "wrong" to think we had compassion. That was the most insulting thing I had ever heard. I guess he never thought we were gay.

[...]

"I have received several phone calls from Blacks, both gay and straight, who were caught up in Westwood around the time of that march. From being called 'niggers' to being accosted in their cars and told that it was because of 'you people gays don't have equal rights and you better watch your back,' these gays have lost their d* minds."

(I edited it to take out the offensive language)

(via)

I still don't think they'll protest black churches but they aren't exactly happy with blacks either singling them out for bigotry. Pretty telling, huh? But apparently it's not the fault of the black voters but the evil religious right who lead them astray:

The Religious Right has invested in systematic outreach to the most conservative elements of the Black Church, creating and promoting national spokespeople like Bishop Harry Jackson, and spreading the big lie that gays are out to destroy religious freedom and prevent pastors from preaching about homosexuality from the pulpit.

In addition, Religious Right leaders have exploited the discomfort among many African Americans with white gays who seem more ready to embrace the language and symbols of the civil rights movement than to be strong allies in the continuing battle for equal opportunity. At a series of Religious Right events, demagogic African American pastors have accused the gay rights movement of "hijacking" and "raping" the civil rights movement.

I don't think this is anything new, I've heard this for years. What the gays experience is piddling compared to what the blacks went through and the blacks know it. Who would want their movement co-opted by those who haven't endured the same struggle?

And then there's this from Andrew Sullivan:

And we need patience and relentlessness in explaining our lives. And how human they are. It's not fair; we should have it all already. But we don't. And in a democracy, that means persuasion, not fiat.

He should have added judicial fiat.

Listen, you guys on the left may not like it but the government has the right to set the terms for marriage. In California that's done through a ballot initiative. It doesn't matter that you think it's wrong, it's been this way throughout history. Appealing to the founding fathers is ludicrous (as some on the left have done) because if they knew that this was going to be an issue, they would have been explicit in stating that marriage was between a man and woman. They would never have thought otherwise.

I don't usually state my opinion on this issue, I just note the reactions of others. I came the closest when I said that most people would agree with civil unions. I'm torn on this issue because I wish the church wasn't seen as attacking any particular group, I'm saddened that we're seen as unloving to gays because many of us don't think it's our business (it's between them and God) but on the other hand, I can understand that Christian and Mormon voters want to maintain the traditional view of marriage. And legally they have every right to do so. We are still governed by the will of the people and they have spoken on this issue. That doesn't make the Californian religious establishment "homophobic," it just makes them want to maintain what's been the norm throughout history.

And btw, this is nothing new in the history of our nation. The Mormons experienced their own persecution because of their view on polygamy. Pretty ironic, huh?

But I do agree with ar that maybe the Mormons should get to know the protesters, though I wonder if the gays would be open to the idea or would the Mormons have to worry about their safety when the gays are so angry that they're turning on their own community.