Spring Break
The Daily OrangeGay Americans have earned the right to say their wedding vows
Abstract:
Once upon a time, inner city slums from the Hillcrest neighborhood in San Diego to Washington Square West in Philadelphia were filled with prostitutes, torn apart by violence and decried as terrible environments to raise a family. It was a sad and hopeless situation, to say the least....
- Displaying 1 - 5 of 5
Amit Taneja
posted 3/18/08 @ 9:51 AM EST
Thank-you Kevin for addressing the importance of marriage equality for LGBT people. I can appreciate your intent of including gentrification in the article - I read it as LGBT people being able to work through tough situations to make things "better". However, I have to challenge the idea that all LGBT people support gentrification.
As an out gay man, I am thouroughly opposed to gentrification because it is vastly racist and classist in many ways. Gentrification has mostly been carried out by white gay men (who in some ways historically were forced in to these neighborhoods as well) ... and the gentrification process has disproportionately affected poor communities of color.
Unfortunately, some LGBT people have seen the financial value of what gentrification does to property values in big cities, and the same mentality has carried over to smaller cities, including Syracuse. I love the idea of a gay neighborhood - I love queer people - I love the thought of being able to go for a midnight stroll holding my partner's hand without threat of injury or insult. BUT, I don't want to have that at the expense of a poor family that is much more disenfranchised than I am.
Lastly, I think it is important to think about who wins out in the end. The gays come and displace the poor, and then the heterosexual families come and displace the gays (this is totally happening in both Castro in San Francisco, and the Village/Chelsea in NYC). In the end, the pecking order is maintained. The middle class gays came and "cleaned the neighborhood" (as they put it)of crime and poor people, and then the straight people come and clean the neighborhood of the "deviant gays". I know this is an exaggeration, but still worth thinking about.
So again, I really apprecaite your support for gay marriage, but I don't want it to be because of gentrification. That is not a part of the queer community that I am proud of.
Amit Taneja
Doctoral Student - Higher Education.
As an out gay man, I am thouroughly opposed to gentrification because it is vastly racist and classist in many ways. Gentrification has mostly been carried out by white gay men (who in some ways historically were forced in to these neighborhoods as well) ... and the gentrification process has disproportionately affected poor communities of color.
Unfortunately, some LGBT people have seen the financial value of what gentrification does to property values in big cities, and the same mentality has carried over to smaller cities, including Syracuse. I love the idea of a gay neighborhood - I love queer people - I love the thought of being able to go for a midnight stroll holding my partner's hand without threat of injury or insult. BUT, I don't want to have that at the expense of a poor family that is much more disenfranchised than I am.
Lastly, I think it is important to think about who wins out in the end. The gays come and displace the poor, and then the heterosexual families come and displace the gays (this is totally happening in both Castro in San Francisco, and the Village/Chelsea in NYC). In the end, the pecking order is maintained. The middle class gays came and "cleaned the neighborhood" (as they put it)of crime and poor people, and then the straight people come and clean the neighborhood of the "deviant gays". I know this is an exaggeration, but still worth thinking about.
So again, I really apprecaite your support for gay marriage, but I don't want it to be because of gentrification. That is not a part of the queer community that I am proud of.
Amit Taneja
Doctoral Student - Higher Education.
Kevin
posted 3/18/08 @ 11:50 AM EST
Thank you, both of you. I do realize that there are more compelling reasons for gay marriage and I do wish I could address them. And I regret not mentioning gentrification's effects on the poor. In an attempt to emphasize LGBT groups community building abilities, I over simplified things. All in all, this was an attempt that didn't quite work in the end as I had hoped.
Mike G.
posted 3/23/08 @ 10:48 AM EST
Gays have already restored inner-city communities across America, let them now try to restore dignity to the state of the American family by giving them the chance to say "I do."
Because parts of Hawai'i and San Francisco are nice, and there's a gay community, you postulate that the gentrification happened because of the gay influx?
Is that correct or am I building a straw man?
If so, that's quite a theory.
Furthermore, you are under the assumption that only Democrats, and only politicians can make a "change" on this issue. However, Kevin, I see it as a church issue. Why should politicians decide who gets married in churches or temples or whatever house of worship? It should be a matter of the individual religious institutions. Many Catholic churches require couples to undergo a marriage test/course. Some churches require STD tests. If they decide which straight couple get married, they should decide which gay couples get married, if at all, in their houses of worship.
McCain left his first wife. Hillary lived in a polygamous marriage. Giuliani is an adulterer. Romney is a Mormon. Obama had parents of different races...
...personally, I could care less about all of it. But the point is, the country does not embrace the candidates' backgrounds (and former candidates) 100%. They all have different views on marriage, religions, and love; so why should one of those 5 people be the decider on our marriage policy?
Because parts of Hawai'i and San Francisco are nice, and there's a gay community, you postulate that the gentrification happened because of the gay influx?
Is that correct or am I building a straw man?
If so, that's quite a theory.
Furthermore, you are under the assumption that only Democrats, and only politicians can make a "change" on this issue. However, Kevin, I see it as a church issue. Why should politicians decide who gets married in churches or temples or whatever house of worship? It should be a matter of the individual religious institutions. Many Catholic churches require couples to undergo a marriage test/course. Some churches require STD tests. If they decide which straight couple get married, they should decide which gay couples get married, if at all, in their houses of worship.
McCain left his first wife. Hillary lived in a polygamous marriage. Giuliani is an adulterer. Romney is a Mormon. Obama had parents of different races...
...personally, I could care less about all of it. But the point is, the country does not embrace the candidates' backgrounds (and former candidates) 100%. They all have different views on marriage, religions, and love; so why should one of those 5 people be the decider on our marriage policy?
Edwin Dean
posted 3/26/08 @ 12:57 AM EST
SENATOR ROBERT BYRD OF WEST VIRGINIA FOR PRESIDENT!
STOP THE MADNESS! RESTORE TRUE VALUES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY! BYRD IN 2012!
STOP THE MADNESS! RESTORE TRUE VALUES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY! BYRD IN 2012!
- Displaying 1 - 5 of 5
dhgfgg
posted 3/18/08 @ 7:57 AM EST
Put simply, there are far more compelling reasons for gay rights than "They make our cities look nice".