The real story here is the role of the the great opiate, religion.. All of these schemes operate under a theory of "what God has ordained" ; yet we are supposed to be in moderation nation states that should have transcended these conditions. What Niman is not hip to here is that the Black community is probably one of the most religiously conservative (hence secularly irrational) in and uniquely America. Their survival, liberation, intellectual, cultural, social, and coping values (in the American historical dialectic) was the Bible. This was the only tool and weapon that shaped a majority of it's liberation leaders, and with "Amazing Grace," defined and shaped their struggle for emancipation. So they are also limited by those contradictions that clash with "Today's" neo-political realities. This is also true for the Jewish population as well.. Their dualistic view of the world and civilization is grounded in the very Bible that defines them as God's "Chosen People." Thus they on the one hand argue for the egalitarian rights of humanity (a modern secular post World War II UN concept - codified in the "Declaration of Human Rights") but in contradiction of said rights and the Holocaust experience deny this very expression to the Palestinian on the grounds of their religious belief that Israel was a "God-given" (oh and same Bible used by Blacks who are equally religiously Zionistic). The secular expression of religions often reveals the contradiction of these ideas as in the case of the Proposition 8 vote. The secular and non-messianic Bible culture base citizens of this era are really illiterate in the histories of these groups and what really shapes their culture and action. It often comes down to what "liberty " is. Unfortunately, the secular & these very groups are quite illiterate as to the values codified in the universal declaration of human rights and thus are bound to repeat the errors or contradictions of what their fathers did or believed at the expense of the great "light of current history & experience. The Judeo-Christian masses (left alone & absent sound political re-education) will fall back on actions that are grounded (knowingly or not) in a Bible or "word of God" that over time is often conflated and wrapped into "custom" which drives their respective current political & ideological actions (a semi-conscious religious body politick).

I think Dr. Niman goes over the top and is quite reckless when he draws the parallel of these oppressed cultures with child molesters.. Because this terrible psychological defect can & does occur in all of these communities (amongst the Gay's too) and is used here to evoke a parallel or equivalency that is solely for shock value rather than illuminating the real contradictions in between Bible and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You should forward him my observation and that he should rise to the scholarly challenge of taking on and encouraging a discussion the Bible and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in a post Obama age..

Peace,
-Aaron Mair

Black people are like child molesters. Whatever.

Dr. Niman is apparently of the school of thought that inappropriate and stark comparisons of phenomena somehow lend extra credibility to flaccid arguments. This is generally a manifestation of the same principle that the loudest person in the room is the most correct; a notion that is equally flawed. But maybe there is more to this comparison than simple shock value.

Dr. Niman's argument, in a nutshell, is that blacks voted for prop 8 because they collectively foster the same mentality as a formerly abused child molester passing down injustice from generation to generation. This, of course, is an extended argument rooted in the same elitist and patronizing attitude from which Dr. Niman berates all those who fail to share his enlightened view of the world. "Anyone who votes in a way that disagrees with how I would rule the world," He reasons, "must be plagued with some deep irrationality." Such thinking rots away at the foundation of the rational discourse necessary for the proper function of a democracy, and Dr. Niman's cavalier dismissal of the thoughts of others betrays his larger contempt for the idea of liberalism and democracy in general. The sooner one realizes that he simply judges democracy by its ends, as opposed to its means, the more quickly one can see that he fosters the soul of a tyrant, more interested in modeling society to conform to his intellect than allowing the free exchange of differing views to fall where they may.

The sovereign will of a democracy is the majority. Aristocracy is based on the principle that the best men ought to rule, because the temper and ignorance of the masses is incapable of governing effectively and beneficially. The idea that the majority are unable to rule themselves is an old one, from which mankind has been diverting, generally, for the last several hundred years. This aristocratic idea is true conservatism, and, therefore, the rightful ideological opposition to this idea is liberalism, which is the idea that individuals are safe guardians for determining their own interests and that the superior means of collective rule consists of equal consideration of these interests in the public forum, i.e. democracy.

Dr. Niman demonstrates his true conservatism by attacking the rationality of those participating in black vote in California. He argues that blacks voted against prop 8, not because of any rational principle, but out of some psychological trauma. He has portrayed blacks as cogs or amoebae, responding mindlessly to stimuli. This is the grounding of the aristocratic thought process. Once he makes the point that voters are not operating rationally, he is a hair away from making the point that irrational votes ought not to be counted at all.

After all, it is impossible to Dr. Niman that black voters believe anti-miscegenation laws were deemed unconstitutional with the majority opinion citing cases related to the previously established right of procreation and the interest of the state in fostering such a right (Skinner v Oklahoma, Maynard v Hill), which, as a biological impossibility between same sex couples, would render the basis of the court’s recognition of the right of differing races to marry to be fundamentally distinct from the right of same-sex couples to do likewise?

Had it occurred to Dr. Niman that black voters might place some substantial weight on the presence of gender specific personal pronouns when elaborating on the rights of married couples in the California constitution, distinctly referencing both a "he" and a "she," and, from this, might draw the conclusion that the framers of the state constitution thus clearly excluded gay marriage save for an explicit constitutional amendment?

Did Dr. Niman consider that, for black voters, the passage of prop 8 might have served as a round rejection of what they might imagine to be an over-extension of the power of the courts to legislate mores that have not been formally accepted by the majority through a direct vote, which, they might believe, is a more democratic and superior means of crafting social policy?

The question of whether any of these considerations is compelling to me, Dr. Niman, the reader, or whomever is not at stake here. The real crux consists of Dr. Niman's unwillingness to grant that blacks might decide to pass or reject prop 8 based on some rational consideration of the issue at stake. That blacks fail to be completely socially liberal baffles Dr. Niman to the point where he posits some inherited psychological condition to account for it. It could be that the traditional alliance of blacks with the Democratic Party might be less connected to their support of Democratic policy and connected to the perception of Republicans as racist. Who knows?

The important part is to recognize that Dr. Niman does not feel the need to discuss the point at all. Instead of composing a brilliant, eloquent defense of the right of same-sex couples to marry, he has devoted his time to leveling accusations of irrationality against a whole race for their "failure" to make the enlightened decision he feels they ought to have made. There are many who resent the use of the courts to override the will of the majority on most matters, preferring instead the appeal to the endowed reasoning faculties shared by their fellow citizen; the belief being that a passionate argument to invoke the ratiocination of the many is the superior means of obtaining democratic governance. These same people detest an aristocracy of any type, even of the courts, where the enlightened elite must rule on what is best for hoi polloi.

Dr. Niman clearly believes that making a spirited argument which appeals to reason is of no use. After all, what good is in reasoning with a child molester, or a black person for that matter? They are going to act irrationally anyway right?

Whatever.

God, I miss convoluted neocon rants like these, where neurotic children of bourgeois privilege are the commoners. Sometimes, they even make a point in the course of all of their intellectual somersaults. Much form, but little function.

In this case, there's a point. Blacks have been schisming over money issues for a while, now. Personally, I question how many would be such Uncle Toms that they'd support Prop 8 out of a conservative rationale. Apparently, the more materialistic they become, the more they are losing their ideology.

This is also what happened to the baby boomers who sold out. We're now seeing the consequences of a society that attempts to hold itself together through the small-mindedness and pseudo values of greed and pragmatism, via crapitalism's ongoing collapse on the world market. Moderate values don't replenish the moral fiber and they aren't symbiotic. They are slowly destructive, like drugs ...ultimately parasitic.

I don't know how Dan R or Aaron Mair misinterpreted Niman's very reasonable claim about child molesters. It well-known that children who are abused can grow up to be abusers and that abusers rarely come from non-abusive background. Human beings are very complex and we contain a lot of contradictions, one of which is that victims can take the point of view of victimizers, even during the victimization itself (Stockholm syndrome).

In light of this, Niman wasn't saying "Black people are like child molesters" except in the sense of saying (black) people are like (any group of) people.

Perhaps Niman's mistake was in making the claim that child molesters are human beings who got very hurt. I mean, you wouldn't actually want to ever talk about healing the world - much better that we simply dehumanize people who might be different than us.

Hey! Let's do that! That would be right in line with denying the right to marry to gay people who aren't like us.... except that they are. One-tenth of *us* are gay. Who's the "them" and who's the "us" here?

I'm really not sure, but I'm pretty certain that my child-less marriage is strengthened by people who claim that marriage is for people who love each other, and weakened by bigots who claim that marriage is for children.

I agree that we blacks who are growing more materialistic because we got more money in our pockets are hurting all our people. Suddenly some of us too righteous for the ones who put us where we at now, fighters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Yall probably would vote anti-gay just because it's an easy sacrifice in your desire to be more white. Peace

mr. niman just who are you to compare the african american plight to your pro gay lifestyle? there is no comparison! you are wrong to try and employ the help of the black community just to get more support on the issues that are important to you(whether privately or publicly admitted by you)and yours. where were you and the gays from 1555 in the hot sun up to sun down forced labor fields? you certainly existed then as you do now? but every time you came pass the fields of slavery you looked the other way as if we did'nt exist. some of you even owned us. looking at today where are you on the following cases: continued police brutality, racism (as we are in the top 5 in this category also). i believe that you see on the larger scale you see that we are slowly and surely making strides to tomorrow with divine help. you see mr. niman here's the difference: when me and all like me were born we did'nt choose to be black it cams attached. but how much does this society believe in god if they say "we did'nt choose to be gay, we should have been born in a different body". if you agree to this then you must also believe that god made a mistake. well if he made a mistsake then how about the book of leviticus that condemns man on man and woman on woman. you can't have it both ways. who wants to follow an imperfect god anyway? no thanks mr. niman we are making these strides with gods' help and still have a long way to go but you see it and want us to help you but we are still too busy as we still have a long way to go.