LGBT advocates like to compare themselves to African Americans in what they claim is discrimination practiced against them. We know that African Americans were systematically left out of much of American life. Many were locked into crushing poverty that could be tied directly to their inability to get jobs, find proper housing, or advance their cause in courts, at the ballot box, or in the popular media.
LGBT advocates want us to believe the discrimination against them can somehow be compared to that.
Matthew Franck pointed out in these pages that recent Federal Court rulings scoff at the claim that LGBT persons are politically powerless. Frank quotes from the decision of Ninth Circuit Judge Robert Jones of Nevada who wrote in a recent decision:
The question of “powerlessness” under an equal protection analysis requires that the group’s chances of democratic success be virtually hopeless, not simply that its path to success is difficult or challenging because of democratic forces. . . . The relevant consideration is the group’s “ability to attract the attention of the lawmakers,” an ability homosexuals cannot seriously be said not to possess.
And now comes a new study from the financial services giant Prudential. The study looked at 1,401 LGBT persons aged 25-68 from “urban, suburban, and rural communities throughout the 50 states in August 2012.”
Rather than living in extreme poverty, or poverty of any kind, the study shows that gay individuals and couples are significantly better off than heterosexuals. They are more likely to be employed. They make significantly more money. They have much higher levels of disposable income and have more in savings.
The study found that the LGBT community is in relatively good financial health with a median household income of $61,500, above the median U.S. household income of $50,000. Although gay men report earning more than lesbians individually ($49,000 vs. $43,500 median personal income), when it comes to household income, lesbians, who are more likely to live in dual-income households, have higher household income ($63,700 vs. $62,300). While the combined household income of gay male couples is the highest overall at $103,000, these couples constitute a minority (19%) of the LGBT community.
A lawyer in Washington, D.C., recently said the LGBT folks are the most powerful minority group our country has ever seen. They are lauded in the media and in the popular culture. They are better off by any financial measure. And their cause is championed by what Fr. Neuhaus called the “prestige media.” They are honored and promoted not just at Ivy League schools but in just about every college setting in the United States. And those who oppose them? They are vilified, driven from their jobs and from the public square.
Let us hope that the Supreme Court, which has taken up this issue, looks carefully at the real and privileged position of the homosexual community in the United States. We should all be so discriminated against.
December 10th, 2012 | 9:51 am
A lawyer in Washington DC recently said the LGBT folks are the most powerful minority group our country has ever seen.
More powerful than the Jews?
They are lauded in the media and in the popular culture. They are better off by any financial measure. And their cause is championed by what Father Neuhaus called the “prestige media.” They are honored and promoted not just at Ivy League schools but in just about every college setting in the United States. And those who oppose them? They are vilified, driven from their jobs and from the public square.
And people claim there is no such thing as anti-gay animus?
December 10th, 2012 | 9:51 am
The Jews are a much, much closer analogy to gays than blacks. Don’t forget, we live in a civil rights world where one doesn’t need to argue “we are just like the blacks” to have a valid claim. Take a look at what’s already protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent civil rights legislation.
Further, as a capitalist, it doesn’t surprise me at all that a disliked, and otherwise marginalized group would be able to flourish when given their economic freedom.
December 10th, 2012 | 9:59 am
Really, it’s ethically shockingly obtuse to conclude that because LGBT people are comparatively financially well off that “we should all be so discriminated against.” To even say such a thing is to overlook so much painful history, and so much actual human suffering due to persecution and stigmatization, that — well, one hardly knows where to begn.
December 10th, 2012 | 10:56 am
What is ethically shocking is the consideration of privilege given to LGBT community because his status of “powerless”. Of course there are nothing bad in being a wealthy community.
December 10th, 2012 | 11:35 am
Have we completely forgotten, erased from memory, that condemnation of sexual relations between men was based on the fact that this contact often did and does cause fatal diseases?
If advances in medical science have now made attempts to terrify people into avoidance of things that might harm them passe, we still have, I believe, an obligation to warn young people of the irreversible harm and infections associated with heterosexual promiscuity and homosexual contact.
This has nothing at all to do with “persecution and stigmatization”.
That said I suspect that the issue this post attempts to address is creation of various and sundry oppressed groups who must receive special protection under the law. This special protection often includes censorship and oppression of the rights of others.
December 10th, 2012 | 11:36 am
It does seem odd that powerlessness, in this case, is not being able to collect survivor benefits when the person you claim to love passes away.
What is the argument for a man to have the right to another man’s pension?
December 10th, 2012 | 12:32 pm
A Reader –
In what era, exactly? It was reviled primarily as unnatural up until around maybe the late 19th century, not specifically unhealthy.
I actually do agree with that. But we should note that lesbian congress is significantly safer than even heterosexual encounters. Activity with males is what’s dangerous, full stop.
December 10th, 2012 | 12:33 pm
We know that African-Americans were systematically left out of much of American life.
They still are.
December 10th, 2012 | 12:46 pm
The data is showing that LG individuals are comparatively better off financially. None of the data says anything about the T, and I think you’d find that they experience discrimination in a very real financial sense.
As for the LG individuals, I don’t believe that it supports your argument that they are ‘privileged’ in some way. Consider that LGBT folks tend to be more concentrated in urban areas (which have higher incomes). To do a valid statistical comparison of their incomes, you need to do comparisons within geographical groups.
December 10th, 2012 | 2:10 pm
David B writes:
“Really, it’s ethically shockingly obtuse to conclude that because LGBT people are comparatively financially well off that “we should all be so discriminated against.” To even say such a thing is to overlook so much painful history, and so much actual human suffering due to persecution and stigmatization, that — well, one hardly knows where to begin.”
Ruse’s point is a legal point. Many people with idiosyncratic sexual proclivities have suffered persecution, including wife swappers, compulsive masturbators, and those with a fondness for post-pubescent youth. But none of this proves they are politically powerless, which is essential to minority status for heightened scrutiny. According to your reasoning, David, Evangelical Christians–who carry very little cultural weight in the enclaves in which you travel–should receive preferential treatment when their sensibilities conflict with those of gay men and women. So, an Evangelical Christian should be allowed to refuse to rent a room at his home to a gay couple, since he does not want sodomy to occur under his roof. Sounds reasonable to me. And yet, the folks you support want to crush this Evangelical Christian, force him to submit to the tsunami of the sexual revolution.
Your outrage is phony.
December 10th, 2012 | 2:16 pm
Impressive spin.
There is civil inequality, unequal access to healthcare, greater propensity to being victims of violence, and proven employment discrimination. All of these things are even more pronounced for the transgender portion of LGBT.
In addition to all of this, LGBT are victims of stereotyping, false accusation, and social stigma. Even many who purport to “have no problem with gay people,” often have an attitude that accompanies, “but not in my back yard and not in front of my kids.” The fear of predators is entirely misplaced as the majority of that kind of abuse stems from members of their own family yet still this association is commonly spoken of as if it had validity.
That LGBT peeople are less likely to hold blue collar jobs should not be surprising to you. That they can be capable and productive members of this society is all the more reason why they should have the safety, respect, fairness, and legal protections guaranteed by everyone else.
I expect that future generations will look back on this the same way we look back on racism today. Some of us already do.
December 10th, 2012 | 2:48 pm
Ray Ingles: The words used in Romans l:27 are very harsh but they do convey the idea that men who have relations with men “receive in their own persons the due penalty…”. The penalty was obviously disease, even death.
I understand that some scholars believe there was a connection in ancient times between disease and forbidden behavior, such as the prohibition against eating pork and the disease trichinosis. Perhaps adultery and other condemned behaviors or required behaviors (hand washing) were in this category.
December 10th, 2012 | 3:58 pm
My question as an African American is, how do gays quantify their painful experience beyond subjectivity (personal feelings), a few high profile murders (which is wrong) and blue laws (which affected everyone)…and compare it to the systemic discrimination and oppression seen in Jim Crow laws, outright racism and modern redlining for the last 300+ years? I guess the argument about powerlessness can be about how society made it harder for gays to come out of the closet but isnt that argument a slippery slope?
December 10th, 2012 | 4:45 pm
I haven’t read the data, but I’m suspicious of the claim that gays are especially wealthy and therefore powerful. I would think that gays are undercounted. Urban centers have gays who are out of the closet, but I doubt that rural areas do. Then there are gays who still live double lives. It seems likely that poorer gays live unstable lives, lacking the protection that middle-class life affords. It also seems like that middle and upper-class gays are double-income-no-kids, which gives them disposable income that they can invest in causes. Finally, prestige media has typically picked up and championed social causes.
“And those who oppose them? They are vilified, driven from their jobs and from the public square”
Vilified yes, but driven from their jobs? Against the handful of sensational stories about anti-gay activists, you have story after story from every gay person you have ever known about rejection by family, friends, schools, teams, etc., and stories of violence, both threatened and acted out.
December 10th, 2012 | 6:57 pm
According to Wikipedia, “The Supreme Court has recognized race, national origin, religion and alienage as suspect classes; it therefore analyzes any government action that discriminates against these classes under strict scrutiny.”
Does anyone reasonably suggest that race should no longer be recognized as a suspect class? I certainly wouldn’t. But I can’t help but notice that we have an African American president now in his second term who lost the white vote. As I said above, “political powerlessness” is just one proposed test for suspect class. But in the United States today, it is difficult to maintain that race and national origin render one politically powerless when blacks and Hispanics elected a black president, and Hispanics are such an important group that Marco Rubio is already running for president in 2016.
December 10th, 2012 | 7:46 pm
Ruse’s point is a legal point. Many people with idiosyncratic sexual proclivities have suffered persecution, including wife swappers, compulsive masturbators, and those with a fondness for post-pubescent youth. But none of this proves they are politically powerless, which is essential to minority status for heightened scrutiny.
Thomas Aquinas,
It seems it is almost mandatory for opponents to demean gay people and same-sex marriage by implying they belong in the same category as pedophilia, bestiality, wife-swapping, and what have you. It is insulting, it’s meant to be, and it doesn’t, as far as I can see, “contribute to the discussion.”
To the best of my knowledge, neither case coming before the Supreme Court depends on arguments of suspect class and heightened (or strict) scrutiny. Also if they did, “political powerlessness” might not enter into the decision. And finally, if it did, there could be interpretations of the concept that had very little to do with the “commonsense” definitions people in this thread seem to have in mind. The truly politically powerless don’t manage to get their cases in front of the Supreme Court.
Austin Ruse’s ruse here has been to imply gays only have a claim to gay rights if they are politically powerless, and since a Prudential study “finds LGBT community in relatively good financial health,” the Supreme Court ought to vote against gay rights.
What Ruse and no one else has pointed out is that at the heart of one of the two cases is survivor benefits, and the full title of the Prudential report is Prudential study finds LGBT community in relatively good financial health; retirement a major concern, along with a lack of Social Security survivor benefits.
My understanding is that the DOMA case is going to be argued largely on states’ rights grounds. Until DOMA, the states were always permitted to define marriage, and the federal government permitted the states to do so. Then DOMA came along and said even if states legalized same-sex marriage, it would not be recognized for federal purposes. If the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, it will merely be returning to the status quo ante, when the states had the authority to define marriage within their own borders.
December 11th, 2012 | 12:20 am
“Have we completely forgotten, erased from memory, that condemnation of sexual relations between men was based on the fact that this contact often did and does cause fatal diseases?”
I wonder what chance event, in that happy alternate Earth where HIV never crossed over from chimpanzees to humans in the early 20th century and blossomed into a global epidemic that happened to be especially visible among gay/bi men in the First World in the 1980s, would be used to argue against homosexuality.
December 11th, 2012 | 1:44 am
kelly wrote an “Impressive spin” of her own:
“There is civil inequality, unequal access to healthcare, greater propensity to being victims of violence,”
===========
There is no greater propensity to being victims of violence. What needs to be highlighted is how many destructive consequences there are in society because of the attitudes and behaviors of LGBT people with a homosexual agenda.
LGBT individuals cause billions of dollars of healthcare damage to society because of their irresponsible and dysfunctional sexual behaviors (FT keeps censoring my posts on the health care costs related to HIV, AIDS, and syphilis, so I can’t refer you to them). Millions of LGBT individuals engage in and promote damaging, demeaning and dehumanizing sexuality attitudes such as hook-ups, promiscuity, sex outside marriage, production and consumption of porn, prostitution…
Moreover, there are plenty of LGBT people who are perpetrators of all kinds of harmful actions, behaviors, and/or violence to adults and children (sexual assault, abuse, harassment, aggressive unwelcome advances, battering, murder…). The majority have impunity for many of their destructive acts.
What this means is that there are millions of LGBT people who are quite privileged, unethical, and harmful individuals on a personal and social level.
On top of it, aside from destructive personal behaviors, they often promote the persecution and discrimination of anyone who disagrees with their homosexualist views.
Unfortunately the FT comment section is a space where anyone pointing this out will be mostly censored.
December 11th, 2012 | 10:45 am
Just a few points of fact about the study.
The name of the Prudential study is “The LGBT
Financial Experience 2012-2013 Prudential
Research Study”.
The surveyed 1401 LGBT persons (including T’s) in urban, suburban and rural settings.
December 11th, 2012 | 11:21 am
If anyone cares to actually look at the study instead of reading the top line findings, they would realize how flawed it was.
This study uses the group Community Marketing to gain its data and the respondents were all already members of its LGBT Research Panel. Not only is this not a random sampling which would better ensure a lack of bias, but it from a self-selected group of individuals who volunteered for the study.
As we think on who is most likely to have the time, energy, and technological capacity to respond to surveys such as this, we must realize that the results lend themselves to a more affluent segment of society. While it is nice to know that so many LGBT Americans report having a high quality of life, this sampling cannot be considered representative of the entire LGBT population and the dire economic straits many of them are in.
Furthermore, to respond to how LGBT Americans have faced discrimination beyond the emotional stigma that has existed in the past and still exits today, we need only look to employment. In the 20th century it was still legal for the federal government to fire or hire employees based solely on their LGBT status. Also, up until the last Congress the military could discharge soldiers for being LGBT. Furthermore, it is still legal in 30 states for people to be fired for being LGBT regardless of how well they may perform the job.
Discrimination is more than an emotionally damaging phenomenon. It affects the livelihoods and families of gay people every day and is highly pervasive in current American society.
December 11th, 2012 | 11:25 am
“They are more likely to be employed. They make significantly more money. They have much higher levels of disposable income and have more in savings.”
What better environment to raise children?
December 11th, 2012 | 12:03 pm
There is no greater propensity to being victims of violence.
December 11th, 2012 | 5:21 pm
Heather wrote: “There is no greater propensity to being victims of violence.”
Nickol wrote: “The FBI last week issued its 2011 Hate Crime Statistics”
=============
To note: “Hate crime” is a dubious concept, especially in the context of sexuality.
Furthermore, “hate” crimes are only a tiny category of all types of violence that are perpetrated in society.
In other words, the ranking of hate crime categories does not tell us who is most likely to be a victim of violence.
Moreover, I doubt that there is any use in claiming that one category of people is more likely to be a victim, taking into account every single violent action ever committed.
To state that homosexuals are more likely to be victims of violence only serves propaganda purposes as it relates to promoting a homosexuality agenda. It’s purpose is to insist on a false victim stereotype of people taking on the LGBT labels.
Certainly by raw numbers, people with a homosexual problem would rank very lowly as victims of crimes. Would it be whites? Women? Children/youth? The poor? I don’t know.
And it mostly doesn’t matter unless we are focusing on a particular type of crime – especially one which is not an artificially labeled crime – as most “hate” crimes involving homosexuals are.
Lastly, it is worth repeating once again the manipulation that homosexuality agenda folks attempt with the claim of “more likely to be victims of violence.” They never examine the number of violent acts perpetrated by homosexuals and present these numbers side by side. The number and type of all kinds of crimes perpetrated by people with a homosexual or bisexual problem must always be hidden or dismissed.
December 12th, 2012 | 6:17 am
Heather,
“They never examine the number of violent acts perpetrated by homosexuals and present these numbers side by side. The number and type of all kinds of crimes perpetrated by people with a homosexual or bisexual problem must always be hidden or dismissed”
I first learned about violence among gays from a gay activist just as I first learned about women committing domestic abuse from a feminist activist. In other words, gays don’t hide their problems from themselves or others.
But I’m still not sure what to do with your assertion that gays can be violent. Why should that fact make me any less horrified that some people beat up gays when they come across them? You seem to be suggesting that gays are incline toward violence, but we have been presented with big numbers about the violence perpetrated by young black men. What do you recommend that we do about them?
December 12th, 2012 | 9:26 am
Michael wrote: “I first learned about violence among gays from a gay activist just as I first learned about women committing domestic abuse from a feminist activist. In other words, gays don’t hide their problems from themselves or others.”
Of course they do. And it’s not just them, most people who are pushing to normalize homosexuality do it too.
As one out of a million other examples, look at kelly’s and David’s posts above. Are they highlighting how much violence and harm LGBT people do in the world?
On the contrary, they are insisting on a victim stereotype – one which is false.
Second, LGBT people do harm to everyone else, not exclusively to other LGBT people as you seem to claim.
The purpose of my statement, which is quite simple, is to expose the kind of “victim” stereotyping David and others constantly engage in. I’m not sure why you seem to have a complaint there. Surely you want to be aware of all the harm and violence LGBT people and their supporters do in the world, don’t you?
I am simply pointing out how inclined people who normalize homosexuality are to dismiss, omit, or outright lie about how much harm and violence LGBT people do in society.
In other words, with my comment, we have a much more realistic picture of LGBT people than with yours or David’s or kelly’s.
And yet you suggest that for me to present clearly information about how much violence and harm LGBT people do in society is equal to me saying that they are more inclined to commit violence.
So if you were truthful about how much violence LGBT people perpetrate, you would also be saying that they are more inclined to commit violence? Is that why you systematically either omit, dismiss, or trivialize information about all the ways in which they are violent, and the damage they do in society?
Secondly, wouldn’t you agree that it’s important to know if people who have a homosexuality problem are more inclined to do any kind of harm? For example, to know whether they are more inclined to lie and cover up harm or violence that other LGBT people do.
To keep silent about violence is quite harmful, don’t you agree?
December 12th, 2012 | 11:56 am
Heather,
“As one out of a million other examples, look at kelly’s and David’s posts above. Are they highlighting how much violence and harm LGBT people do in the world?”
If the topic of this column were about violent tendencies among gays, then yes, I would expect any commenter to discuss the statistics, but the topic is wealth, not violence, and so I’m not surprised the subject hasn’t been discussed.
For example, you haven’t said a word about the amount of violence done by straights, Christians, or conservatives, and yet we know that each of these groups is violent. In fact, I can’t think of a single group that hasn’t been violent.
“On the contrary, they are insisting on a victim stereotype – one which is false”
Are you saying that gays have not been attacked by straights?
“Second, LGBT people do harm to everyone else, not exclusively to other LGBT people as you seem to claim”
I claimed no such thing.
“I am simply pointing out how inclined people who normalize homosexuality are to dismiss, omit, or outright lie about how much harm and violence LGBT people do in society”
Perhaps you could also explain how much good they do.
“And yet you suggest that for me to present clearly information about how much violence and harm LGBT people do in society is equal to me saying that they are more inclined to commit violence”
So you’re saying that they are NOT inclined to be more violent? Is that right? Then why bring up the subject in a conversation about wealth?
December 12th, 2012 | 12:48 pm
Heather –
I confess to not following you here. I’m not aware of any fraction of society whose members don’t commit violence at some level. Some groups (e.g. teenage males generally) definitely commit more violence than other groups (e.g. Amish females).
There are calls to intervene and help prevent teenage males from committing violence; I’ve never hear of a program set up to deter Amish females from committing violence, though. The reason is that one is a much more pressing problem than the other, precisely because teenage males perform a disproportionately large number of acts of violence. There’s no apparent need to draw attention to the problem of gangs of Amish females.
Now, you seem to wish to draw attention to “all the harm and violence LGBT people and their supporters do in the world”. If your point is that “LGBT people and their supporters” do a non-zero amount of “harm”… well, OK, but so do Amish females. That fact by itself isn’t terribly persuasive of anything. I can’t understand why it would be important or distinctive – we’re all human beings.
If you’re claiming that “LGBT people and their supporters” cause a disproportionate amount of harm, that might be different. Then we might have cause for intervention. Is that what you’re claiming?
Of course, even if that were the case, it wouldn’t affect the rights LGBT people have. It’s perfectly true that in many areas black youth commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. (White males do in other areas, of course.) But black males still have civil rights anyway – and, most people agree, rightly so.
So in an argument about rights, your ‘information’ isn’t really relevant… even leaving aside questions about its reliability.
December 12th, 2012 | 12:57 pm
They publish articles like this one, and then they don´t want to be called bigots…go figure.
December 15th, 2012 | 8:04 am
Heather wrote: “As one out of a million other examples, look at kelly’s and David’s posts above. Are they highlighting how much violence and harm LGBT people do in the world?”
Michael wrote: “If the topic of this column were about violent tendencies among gays, then yes, I would expect any commenter to discuss the statistics, but the topic is wealth, not violence, and so I’m not surprised the subject hasn’t been discussed. ”
Why are you purposefully ignoring that kelly and David both discussed the subject of violence? All people have to do is scroll up and see their comments.
It is clear that you are stating something completely false. kelly first stated that “gays” have a “greater propensity to being victims of violence.”
So the subject of violence was brought up – by kelly – but only to insist on a victimhood stereotype – not on how much violence and harm LGBT people perpetrate.
So it wasn’t exactly the subject of violence itself that she brought up. It was her false stereotype of homosexuals as victims, and not only victims, but, even worse, as greater victims than anyone else. A notion that David tried to further insist on, by posting some “hate” crimes statistics.
Contrary to your clearly false claim, the subject of violence was discussed by both kelly and David – in a thread where you claim it had no place to be discussed, because you say the thread was about “wealth.” (Another point where you are wrong, but more on this further below).
Yet kelly’s and David’s comments had as an objective none other than insisting on creating a false stereotype of homosexuals as victims, without ever presenting information of how violent and destructive LGBT people are. In other words, theirs is a complete distortion of reality.
You see, the original post was highlighting how much LGBT people lie about their victim status, by equating their experience to the horrible experience of blacks, in ways that are completely false. As part of the many false claims LGBT people make, one is that theirs is a politically powerless and oppressed experience like the experience of blacks – they aren’t. They also insist on a stereotype where LGBT people only suffer victimization and never perpetrate violence – that is the “victim” stereotype kelly and david harped on.
Contrary to your claim, the original post was not only or mainly about wealth, it’s main point is how much people with a homosexuality agenda lie and exaggerate various claims of LGBT victimization.
These lies by LGBT people are particularly deplorable, given that there are many individuals and groups in society that suffer great victimization and do not have a voice.
Large numbers of LGBT people, shamelessly, pretend to be great victims when they aren’t, and pretend not to be perpetrators of harm when they are.
December 15th, 2012 | 11:13 pm
Heather,
“Why are you purposefully ignoring that kelly and David both discussed the subject of violence?”
I’m not “purposefully ignoring” Kelly and David’s comments. I, in fact, brought up a similar point about the kind of violence that gays suffer. When the article claims that the supposed wealth of gays means that they don’t suffer discrimination, then it’s legitimate to bring up the kinds of discrimination—including violence—that they do suffer. It is, however, irrelevant to bring up the kinds of violence they practice, unless the violence is discriminatory.
“It was her false stereotype of homosexuals as victims, and not only victims, but, even worse, as greater victims than anyone else.”
Are you saying that gays do not suffer threats and acts of violence?
Who on this thread claims that gays are “greater victims than anyone else”?
“Yet kelly’s and David’s comments had as an objective none other than insisting on creating a false stereotype of homosexuals as victims, without ever presenting information of how violent and destructive LGBT people are.”
Exactly how is the violence that SOME gays practice at all relevant to the violence and threats that ALL gays experience?
Gays suffer discrimination as a class of people. They have made dramatic gains over the last half century, enabling them to flourish in ways they haven’t before, but their quest for dignity and respect isn’t over.
The argument of this column reminds me of the situation of Jews in the 1930s. Jewish moguls ran Hollywood and were the engines of popular musical culture, but the Ivies and medical and law schools limited their enrollment. You can be wealthy and hold some of the reins of cultural power and even political power (think Brandeis), but you can still suffer discrimination.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact