Comments on: NY Assemblywoman Barbara M. Clark’s Explanation Of Her Gay Marriage Bill Vote

By: jonesmunoz

jonesmunoz — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:16:28 +0000

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.)

By: Happy Anniversary, Virginia Foxx | The New Civil Rights Movement

Happy Anniversary, Virginia Foxx | The New Civil Rights Movement — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:32:47 +0000

[...] your friends to, as well. FireFoxx is our Facebook page dedicated to ensuring Virginia Foxx, and others like her, are exposed and [...]

By: Judith

Judith — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:57:48 +0000

maybe she's saying we can't walk and chew gum (ie address two problems) at the same time … ?

By: Jay

Jay — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:06:26 +0000

She's stupid.

By: David Badash

David Badash — Sat, 23 May 2009 22:52:00 +0000

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!

By: Ruadhán

Ruadhán — Sat, 23 May 2009 20:22:55 +0000

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.

By: jaysays

jaysays — Fri, 22 May 2009 23:57:26 +0000

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…

By: jaysays

jaysays — Fri, 22 May 2009 23:53:47 +0000

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.

By: David Badash

David Badash — Fri, 22 May 2009 03:40:48 +0000

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.

By: Bob Parker

Bob Parker — Thu, 21 May 2009 23:58:45 +0000

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.