Voted “No”. Do You Agree With Her Reasons?
In New York State, Assemblymembers are allowed to “explain” their votes, on the floor, after casting them. This is done during the voting process, and in addition to time allowed before the voting process for debate. Barbara M. Clark is the New York State Assemblywoman for Queens, NY, a borough of New York City. These are her comments last Tuesday, on the floor of the Assembly, in explanation to her ‘no’ vote on the gay marriage bill:
“I will continue to vote no on this bill, and I appreciate all of the great things that were said about freedom and equality here tonight. I commend Danny, and all of the people who worked very hard to bring this bill to where it is at this point. But I think there are very important things and very important lessons and very important facts that people here on this floor still don’t realize as they make the analogy between civil rights for black people and other people who are underprivileged, and people and gay marriage. Sixty-some percent of black women right now are not married. Now, why are they not married? We in this House should wonder about that. And it’s most likely for, I don’t have the facts, but I live with this all the time, it’s that the black men, who could be eligible for husbands for them, they’re not choosing to marry another man, they’re choosing to not marry because they can’t. They’re either in jail, don’t get an education, don’t have enough income and enough revenue to support a wife and a family. So the reality is, we can talk all the nice things that we want about equality, there’s still a great deal of equality in this state, that we have to stop and recognize if we’re going to move this state forward, you know, we’re very faddish people, we do what is being talked about the most, and done the most for, at a given time in history. But right now, in this state, in New York City, people’s children are about to be sent to hell in a handbasket, by the same kind of, by the same folks, many of them, who are talking about how much we have to be caring, and considerate of people’s rights. And every child in this state, has the right to have a decent education, and every man that wants to marry has the right to have a job and an education so he can support a wife and a family. I vote, no, Madam Speaker.”
I have contacted her office and am awaiting her response to my question, asking her how her comments explain her vote against gay marriage. Should I receive a response, I will post it. What are your thoughts? Does this explain her vote? Does it have anything to do with voting ‘no’ on gay marriage? Is this a cultural issue that needs to be better understood? Should gays work to achieve better circumstances for the people the Assemblywoman referred to? Should we find a way to fight inequality together? Or, is this a case of, “we don’t have full equality, so why should you?” What do you think?
**UPDATE: 05.19.09: A very kind reader offered this link so you can watch Assemblywoman Clark make her statement about why she voted ‘no’ on the gay marriage bill.**
Related posts:
- NY Gay Marriage Bill Vote Tuesday
- NY Senate Vote Against Gay Marriage Cost New Yorkers $210,000,000
- Vote! Should New York Have A Gay Marriage Bill?
- BREAKING: NJ Gay Marriage Bill Will Move Forward To Full Senate Vote
- BREAKING NEWS: NY Gay Marriage Bill DOA?
{ 28 comments }
And every American should have an opportunity to marry the person they love! This persons reasons for voting NO are ludicrous and totally irrelevant! It's hardly the gays fault it black men don't marry the women that Mother their children.. Clue up lady or step down!
It's a slight-of-hand maneuver to distract the listener from her true reason for not voting yes, whatever that may be. It's a simple trick of distraction.
She gave no explanation whatsoever. The issues she brought up are real issues that need to be addressed, but what does her vote have to do with them?
Studying Clark's words, you discover it's empty of reason. To me, it sounds like she's bitter. If one group of people can't get married because of being jailed or economic reasons, then she wants to deny another group the right to get married altogether. Makes no sense.
I think she is playing the race card to try and top her homophia card. Apples and oranges. I have never stopped supporting African American rights just because I didn't have all mine, as a matter of fact the thought never crossed my mind.
Thanks to all for your comments. I received a large number of similar comments on Twitter as well. Not one person was able to validate Clark's line of reasoning, at least so far.
The closest anyone came was saying that perhaps she voted "no" as a protest. But that's it. I'm still waiting a call back from her office.
I wonder if she's saying that only _after_ things are fair and equal for blacks that we can then working on making things fair and equal for queers. We can only make things right for one minority at a time.
I think you're absolutely right. I think she's saying that when blacks have full equality, then she'll consider looking at gay marriage. So, I guess, as an elected representative of the people, she's content to represent only some of the people.
Thanks!
I wonder if she's saying that only _after_ things are fair and equal for blacks that we can then work on making things fair and equal for queers. We can only make things right for one minority at a time.
Of course she quick skips over gay black men and doesn't even consider lesbians. I wonder if she (like some) thinks they don't exist!
I hope you get a response from her office. This is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. I bet she's upset then that some of the black men are marrying white women. Which in turn leaves less black men available to marry the black women.
She should be ashamed of herself.
http://www.zshare.net/video/60211324bd61f0cb/
Its a bait and switch tactic. She wants to bring her issue to the table and is using the gay issue as an excuse. Its lame. Unmarried black women has as much to do with gay issues as unemployed Puerto Rican barbers losing customers because they've decided long hair is fashionable. Thats the best I could come up with but you get the point, she has no point.
Thanks, again, for all your great comments!
I'm going to ensure we get some response, even if it's an official "no comment."
calling this a "bait and switch tactic" or "sleight of hand" is an insult to magicians and con-men everywhere… This is just a pathetic attempt at an explanation, it makes little sense on its own and clearly has nothing to do with the debate on hand.
Assemblywoman Clark wants to talk education? My roommate is a NYC school teacher who teaches English to teenagers and Clark's explanation would probably get a failing grade for having NOTHING to do with the assignment.
Did she really assert that black women are unmarried because eligible black men are imprisoned and/or impoverished and unable to support a wife and family? As a feminist, I am insulted that she thinks women need men to take care them. I would hope that a modern, elected official would see more value in marriage as a partnership, rather than a guardianship. As someone who values racial equality, I am insulted by her narrow view of the men who are eligible to marry black women. She seems to favor "racial purity", a concept I find very troubling. Perhaps most offensive of all, she uses her outdated views on real social equality issues to sideline marriage equality. What she fails to realize is that by allowing diminished rights for one group, diminishes us all.
Wow. Awesome points.
"I am insulted that she thinks women need men to take care them." I was waiting for someone to pick up on that! And also, I love your points about partnership vs. guardianship and "racial purity".
Perhaps I was looking at it only thru my POV; you've opened me up to the fact that Clark's comments are not only homophobic, but racist and sexist as well.
Thank you for making these essential observations!
I think maybe we're whitewashing the image of the gay population to make us look less threatening, less screwed up. As if by looking presentable and responsible maybe they'll let us get married and serve in the military.
We're avoiding the issues that make us look bad–AIDS, drug use, homelessness, depression, teenage pregnancy. As if talking about these things will make it look as though we don't deserve equal rights. When in fact it is not having equal rights, discrimination and harassment is the root cause of these issues.
Parents believe that being gay is such a horrible thing to be that 25% of LGBT youth get kicked out of their homes. Does Clark know this? Does she knew that a third of homeless youths in New York are LGBT? Does she know that LGBT youths try so hard to fit in and hide their sexual identity that they engage in risky heterosexual sex making them 7 times more likely to be involved in teenage pregnancy than their straight peers? This whole debate over whether or not gays are worthy enough to have rights causes many young gay men and women to have such a low sense of self-worth that if they're not committing suicide, they're engaging in behavior that is nothing short of suicidal.
It is a bit of a conundrum. The opposition uses these same issues to show how we're not worthy when it its their opposition that causes these issues in the first place.
I'm not sure what to say. Your words are excellent and I am moved by them. I can't disagree at all. Our community's problems are our problems. And, as hard as it is for me to say this, but the obvious point becomes that those problems exist in the black community too. They may be somewhat different, but not entirely. Perhaps that's what Clark is trying to say, though her words and her actions are irreconcilable.
And that's the problem. Clark is using her community's problems as a defense to not help our community's problems, and that is called, in my book, dereliction of duty.
Thank you for your words and your thoughts.
There are already boards going up discussing whether Folsom Street Fair is bad for the movement – I find it interesting we [generalizing here] are so willing to cast out those we consider "freaks" when others are casting us out because they consider us "freaks."
You're so right about the conundrum…
Marriage Equality opponents are grasping at straws by this point. Assemblywoman Clark is a case-in-point example.
You are absolutely correct! However, those with a platform have a responsibility to tell the truth, and, while no one here seems to agree with her, her words reinforce bigotry among her supporters. That's why not speaking out against this line of thinking is so dangerous.
What amazes me even more than the ignorance and bigotry of her comments is the total and complete rambling nature of them. This is what Queens has representing them? A woman who speaks so poorly, so brokenly, that she cannot even make such a short comment in a way that clearly puts forth her ideas without causing such confusion? This is the elected representative of a major New York borough? I've heard 5th graders that can speak better than this.
The short and sweet of this is that she was rambling, looking for an excuse to justify her bigoted "No" vote, plain and simple. Clearly she had no excuse beyond that bigotry, so what came out was nonsense. I look forward to hearing whatever "explanation" her staff comes up with for her comments, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it. I fully expect that you will never get a response from them. Sadly, while she obviously deserves to be booted from office, she will probably remain in office for a long time as well, because most of her community will probably either agree with her or be so apathetic that it just be enough to get them off their butts and do something about it.
Bob,
She's the Assemblywoman for a very poor part of Queens, NYC (not sure if you're from around there), and has been for 23 years. I'd like to believe she's done much good in those years, but times change, and her words and ideas are best characterized by some of the insightful comments made above on this page, including yours.
Thanks for being here.
I think it's time for Barbara Clark to wake up or move on.
First, it's obvious she "[doesn't] have the facts." When you don't have the facts, you aren't making an informed decision. Second, HOW in the world do socio-economic factors associated with the CHOICE not to marry affect the persons RIGHT to get married. She assumes every gay wants to get married – that's not the case. There will still be socio-economic issues to overcome for gay couples before they choose to get married, it's that right to choose that's at issue.
I would have found her to be more valid had she said she was voting no because a seashell spoke to her and told her to do it.
I can see where she's coming from — and I believe that she believes this is an adequate explanation — but at the same time, it side-steps the issue and attempts to equate two things that aren't really related. It may be her explanation, but it's a poor justification.
The oft-ignored rights of Black men in the United $tates to a good education and equal job opportunity may very well explain why a fair number of Black women are unmarried — but there are also plenty of Black men who prefer dating non-Black women, which may also offer some explanation. East Asian men in the United $tates are also right up there in the least-married population in this country, and East Asians are also the most likely in the U$ to go into business for themselves; they may not all come out rich, but at least comfortable enough to support a family, should that opportunity come to them.
While I agree with many Blacks in the U$ that it's unfair and oversimplifying the issue to compare Black civil rights to GBLT civil rights, the comparison to miscegenation laws of the early 20th Century are appropriate because it's an issue of legitimising the relationship under the eye of the law and affording rights to one's lover that one's next-of-kin will discriminate against. The education and employment opportunities of Black men are a completely different issue and it's intellectually dishonest to compare the two and use this as a justification for a no-vote.
Well-said, on many fronts.
Thanks for your thoughts. The "comparison to miscegenation laws of the early 20th Century are appropriate" part is particularly true and helpful.
Thanks for being here!
She's stupid.
maybe she's saying we can't walk and chew gum (ie address two problems) at the same time … ?
HOW UNBELIEVABLE…. She says that she votes "No" because: of the socioeconomic status of black women, that in the the state and that children are being sent to hell in a hand-basket, uses terms "by the same folks" that sound like terms bigots use…. sounds like great "logic"…. that is if you can understand a word she is trying to say….
Lets just call it what it is…. "bigotry". Civil rights are Civil rights. She doesn't own the historical significance of the civil rights movement, nor does she own any "secret" bits of information that the rest of us are unable to "grasp" Bayard Rustin, Im sure would be able to enlighten us for sure….. (gay ghost writer and friend of Martin Luther King, Jr.)
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }