Equality For Me, But Not For Thee

History was made last night. But the historic night was marred by the passage of Prop 8 in California (a similar proposition was passed in Florida with overwhelming African American and Latino support). Particularly troubling was the voting of African Americans in California (and to a lesser extent Latinos) - who voted 70-30 in favor of stripping gay Californians of their state based constitutional right to marry the person they love.

There were a lot of signs last night that declared "We Have Overcome." No, we have not.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Why Every Vote Matters | Center Right, Center Left >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    We've come so far and yet (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:35:28 AM EST
    practicing inhumane intolerance is no respecter of skin color and we are all at risk.

    This is bad (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:41:51 AM EST
    I am glad that CT marches forward this year with gay marriage though.  

    But this is even worse - banning gays from adopting in Arkansas?  This just shocks me.  Where are these people's heads at?  AP article link.  

    especially b/c it reflects (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by sancho on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:34:39 AM EST
    the new dem majority btd identifies above.

    Its about the generation gap (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Exeter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:48:48 AM EST
    Race was the first bridge to cross and we did that last night. Gay rights will be next, but it will take more time-- but the encouraging thing is that younger voters are voting the right way on this issue.

    noticed that, too (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by dws3665 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:55:22 AM EST
    and it certainly is the "cup half full" view of this depressing situation.

    The point remains that there is a great deal of anti-gay sentiment in the AA and Latino community. That is depressing to me.


    It's not about race, its about age (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Exeter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:04:36 AM EST
    18-29 latinos and AAs voted almost 2-1 against the gay marriage ban ammendment.

    I don't see the numbers for younger AAs (none / 0) (#75)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:09:21 AM EST
    on the CNN chart. All I see is NA.

    We could avoid all this controversy... (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:51:44 AM EST
    if we get the government out of the marriage business all together.

    Have no state or the feds recognize any "marriage", period.  What two people, or a group of people, and their place of worship call themselves and their relationship is no business of the state.

    Completely agree (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:55:22 AM EST
    I agree, but it's impractical. (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:59:30 AM EST
    Unless you're suggesting that no legal rights accrue to married couples (inheritance, testifying in court, medical decisions) then the State will still be in the business of recording marriages in some form.  The anti-gay bigots will fight against that, whatever you call it.

    How woud marriage then work (none / 0) (#92)
    by Faust on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:21:22 AM EST
    relative to wills, taxes, medical proxy, etc? How does the state get out of it when marriage produces a legal status?

    I don't know... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:35:42 AM EST
    How about let every adult citizen assign their own "decision maker", "proxy", "# 2"...whatever you wanna call it...for inheritance, medical decisions, tax purposes.  It can be a spouse, life partner, best friend, relative...who ever.

    Sounds fine to me :) (none / 0) (#132)
    by Faust on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:00:20 AM EST
    Someone is always going to (none / 0) (#200)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:34:47 PM EST
    think they're getting the shaft, will launch a crusade in order to get redress and then the state gets involved all over again.

    As Kurt used to say, so it goes.


    heartbroken (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:51:58 AM EST
    How can I face my gay friends? The couple whose wedding I attended? The two moms of Chris and Brian at our school? I am completely heartborken.

    me, too (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:20:37 AM EST
    I live in a San Jose neighborhood where gay couples have come to live with their families.  My polling place down the block is the LGBT center.  I never once saw a Yes on 8 sign, and in fact, most lawns and windows have had multiple No on 8 signs.  My closest neighbors are 3 different gay couples, all with children, all married since July.  I can't imagine the devastation they are feeling.  I am sad and embarrassed and disgusted today.  

    Why? (none / 0) (#41)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:55:17 AM EST
    Did you vote for this thing?  If not, you have nothing to be personally embarrassed about.

    Of course not. (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:01:05 AM EST
    I just don't know what to say to them. If I feel this bad, they must be devastated.

    I'd say... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:56:15 AM EST
    the state cannot define your friends and their relationship.

    They say they are married and in love, you say they are married and in love...then they are married and in love, no one can take that away.  Their relationships are the same they were yesterday, and the same as the day before Cali allowed gay marriage for the first time.


    that's good. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:03:16 AM EST
    but I also will say that I will fight with them to change this, and so will my family.

    Power to the people baby... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:12:54 AM EST
    give 'em hell coigue.

    after a little rest, perhaps. (none / 0) (#98)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:25:47 AM EST
    On the legal point (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:59:23 AM EST
    Those marriages can not be dissolved.

    To wit, all gay married couples in California remain married.


    Thanks for the info... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:14:06 AM EST
    that's very interesting, I assumed the opposite.

    I see this web getting very tangled.


    Hindsight being 20/20 I suppose the (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:59:45 AM EST
    mistake that the No on 8 camp made was in how they structured their argument. I get the impression that they mainly made a plea for basic human decency. That was a mistake. Maybe they should have taken a page from the Yes camp and played to fear.

    "If Prop 8 passes the next proposition down the line will be against non married straight couples living together and the next one will be against pre marital sex and the next will be against access to contraception..." Make enough people afraid of a slippery slope that they might someday slide down.

    maybe. We need some in-depth (none / 0) (#61)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:02:28 AM EST
    polling data on the matter to take another, stronger crack at it.

    Depressing (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:02:39 AM EST

    Thanks, Tent (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:10:05 AM EST
    We need to be reminded about the difficult ironies marking this new era of "change".  Also is California, Prop 5, that would have channeled more funds into drug treatment and away from pointless incarceration, went down in flames.  

    They tried something like this in Colorado (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by nellre on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:12:37 AM EST
    Only that one was worse. The state supreme court ruled it unconstitutional because it denied gays and lesbians equal protection under the law.
    I am shocked 8 passed, but I hope the California supreme court invalidates it because it denies gay and lesbian couples the lawful protection of marriage, where straight couples are not.

    Which shows that (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:14:37 AM EST
    ignorant political thought is not the monopoly of racial or geographic clusters.  No group has the monopoly on sense of justice, on suffering or on making others suffer.  All our hands are dirty, so lets get over ourselves.  

    This really angered me.  

    The one thing I've kinda sense throughout this (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:36:01 AM EST
    thread is the sentiment that somehow if Obama came out strongly against these measures, blacks would somehow vote en masse the same way.  That's just not gonna happen and it's insulting to think it would.  This, like most other things that are cultural, is generational and will take a few generations to be put to bed.

    Obama did have a unique argument ... (5.00 / 7) (#120)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:47:55 AM EST
    to make.  When his parents were married, interracial marriage was still illegal in many states.  These laws weren't fully abolished until Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

    He could have shown how the debate and the arguments are the same.  He could have made this argument in a very convincing way.  

    If Obama continues to hold a retrograde position on this issue, history will not look kindly upon him.

    This is not a gray area issue.  There is a morally right position, and a morally wrong one.

    And I will not cut any slack to those who don't stand with our gay brothers and sisters on this issue.


    I agree from a moral perspective (none / 0) (#129)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:58:43 AM EST
    folks should be able to be with who they want.  I personally don't care.  I've been in numerous inter-racial relationships myself so I have some perspective.  However, when you start talking morals, scratch that, especially when you're talking morals, you have to ask where people get their morals from.  It's been stated upthread that a lot of this bigotry has it's basis in religion - and IMHO, that's the problem - especially, as BTD notes, in black and hispanic communities.  While yes, there are similarities in the struggle to achieve equality when comparing inter-racial and gay marriage, inter-racial marriage isn't codified as a sin in the bible.  Black & Brown folk aint no different from the rest of the country when it comes to the fervor with which we adhere to religious beliefs.  It is for this reason that no matter what any leader says, if folks feel this conflicts with deeply held religious beliefs.... well, let's just say it's gonna be a hard fought battle.

    I don't buy it (5.00 / 11) (#153)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:22:21 AM EST
    There's tons of horrible crap codified in the Bible, but only some of it is used by churches to oppress other people.

    It's homophobia, pure and simple, using the bible as an excuse to be bigoted.


    We should also remember ... (5.00 / 5) (#178)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:52:14 AM EST
    that the Bible was used as a defense of slavery.  And those words defending slavery are still in the Bible.

    I'm not a religious person, but I always like what C.S. Lewis said about stupid interpretations of the Bible:

    If you're a child, don't read a book meant for adults.

    I don't buy it either. I was simply making a (none / 0) (#202)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:53:07 PM EST
    point, still valid I believe in spite of all the arguments to the contrary here, that for many black and latino people, homosexuality goes against the Word of God.  Personally, I believe the Bible itself to be just like any other compilation of stories told over and over - if they're not heard first-hand they're open to wild interpretations.  Furthermore, I believe it somewhat presumptuous to even think we as humans can know or understand the will of [insert name of whatever entity you believe in] that started this thing we call existence.  My point remains that this is not something that will be an easy sell w/blacks and latino's in spite of bible stories about major figures owning slaves and in spite of interpretations that might be taken to mean God didn't want interracial marriage (which I still don't believe exist - quotes within this thread when researched actually refer to people who live in the same Middle East that comprises Israel, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc. today - these would hardly be considered black folks).  I say this because of EXPLICIT wording about the roles of man and woman, as well as EXPLICIT wording against homosexuality in the bible.  To reiterate, I don't agree w/these ideas.  However, if there is an argument to be made, don't go with the "well your interpretation of the bible and God's will is wrong" route, because it's not going to work.  The way to win the argument is as has been noted upthread, this issue is a separation of church and state issue and who one chooses to partner with is no one's business other than as a legal/rights issue.  There should be a federal definition of a partner that allows a person to choose their "legal" partner and that's it.  How churches choose to handle marriage in a church is a separate issue.  Folks should be able to go down to City Hall and get a state-sanctioned marriage certificate.

    Sorry, but nowhere does it say black man should (none / 0) (#147)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:13:49 AM EST
    not lay with white woman like it does (and I'm paraphrasing) w/regards to the sexes.  The person associate w/the "races as distinct" comment wasn't referring to the bible btw.  He was referring to how the races were primarily living on separate continents.

    and that particular passage (none / 0) (#167)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:35:59 AM EST
    regarding men laying with men refers to male rape as battle/pillaging tactic.  So get over it.  It has nothing to do with loving relationships.

    Thanks if indeed your clarification is true, (none / 0) (#177)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:51:55 AM EST
    I'm no expert on the bible.  I do however take offense as there is nothing for me to get over.  I've no issues whatsoever w/gay-marriage.  If you read my comments accurately you would see that.

    Yup, there's significant debate ... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:06:48 PM EST
    as to what Paul's even talking about in the passages in the new testament.  There's debate about the words, the context, etc..

    Yeah I'm quibbling because I don't believe there (none / 0) (#176)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:50:16 AM EST
    is one and that actually is the point I'm trying to make.  Look, I don't support this stuff.  You are however losing site of my point, which was, the BIBLE is where these cultural mores against gay marriage comes from for Blacks and Latinos.  You shouldn't be suprised there are many Blacks and Latinos that feel this way.  We are no different in many ways than the rest of America.  I say we because I am black, not because I agree w/these bans.

    One thing I will never ... (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:37:41 AM EST
    understand is why people can see prejudice in one area, but are blind to it in another.  Even the victims of prejudice will choose to display bigotry to other groups.

    I'm sure there are many explanations for this.

    But however well argued they are I will never understand them.

    Liberals will be (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:49:06 AM EST
    "politically safe" giving complete unequivocal support to gay marriage right around the time it becomes safe to publicly declare oneself an atheist and have crack at higher office.

    This is what we get for letting the troglodyte wing of Christianity hi-jack the discourse.


    I was talking about just ... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:51:24 AM EST
    average people not pols.

    Pols are craven, we know that.

    But average citizens?  I expect more of them.


    When Group A (none / 0) (#126)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:52:51 AM EST
    sees Group B as a threat to it perhaps competition for jobs or status, then Group A will tend to discriminate against Group B.

    That's putting it broadly, but that's how it works.  I think that gays tend to be a cultural threat to minorities, especially if their participation and inclusion in the larger gay community (largely white) removes them from smaller minority communities.  Essentially, the larger gay community pulls human capital/resources out of the less tolerant communities.  Their "children" leave and don't come back.

    The communities could change and become more inclusive, but change is stressful and uncomfortable so the cultures resist it.  (That is to say, those who benefit the most from the prevailing culture resist change the most.)  So the emigration continues and the communities continue to be both resentful and fearful of the culture that lures their sons and daughters away.


    Fabian, as I said ... (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:11:31 PM EST
    there may be explanations.  But they make no sense to me.

    I guess it comes down to people's inability to identify with the suffering of others, even if they've suffered in the same way themselves.

    But although that may be an explanation, it's not one I can understand.


    If only they would... (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:21:45 PM EST
    By golly, that's how many a bigot rationalizes their bigotry.

    So - If only they would come home and get married.  If only they didn't stick out.  If only those nasty people Out There didn't teach them all those things.
    If only they see how everything would be better (for me) if they would try to fit in.

    The funny thing is that people can say and believe that they are suggesting this For Your Own Good.  Don't be "out".  Women - don't wear revealing clothing, don't go anywhere alone.

    They'll tell us what to do because they care about us.  They'll tell us to modify our behavior so they don't have to change theirs.

    If you ask them - "Why don't you change?" they'll reply "I don't have a problem!".

    Prop 8 shows us who has the problem.  Maybe we can use that old line "If you really loved me, ...." ?


    Thanks for recognizing this BTD (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:52:50 AM EST
    It puts a serious question mark on our gains last night IMO.

    BTW, who's upset that Ronnie Musgrove got drubbed? Not me.

    sad (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by proudliberaldem on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:27:21 AM EST
    thank you for saying this btd. i'm so happy about obama's victory, but 8's passage is a win for bigotry, and very, very sad.

    The way to change (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:17:09 PM EST
    is from the ground up, not from the leadership down.

    In January 2009, the Dem electorate needs to start demanding an end to discrimination against gay families, if only because it's so effectively used against us as a wedge issue.  

    Once the people lead, the leaders can follow.  The first step would be to demand a  repeal of DOMA, and reestablish our "full faith and credit" clause so all states would have to accept marriages/civil unions from other states that allow gays to marry/civil unionize.  An Obama administration can move forward with changes to IRS rules that unfairly penalize children and partners of gay citizens, as well as establish anti-discrimination policy at the federal level.  But none of this can be done top down, or we'll end up in the same situation we were when Bill Clinton wanted to effect positive change for gay citizens who helped him win his second term.  We don't need a another deadlock, and we can't afford to just wait another 50-100 years for society to magically change.  The gay wedge issue is a cash cow for powerful religious institutions.  Anger, fear and "Us vs. Them" mentality brings those organizations more participants than "love your neighbor" ever did.  They're not going to let it go.  But if we are the force behind Obama, and if this election and the next four years are really about us, not just him, then we have a powerful tool in his Faith Based programs.  Demanding that money not be allocated to organizations that promote discrimination against gays would effectively cripple the megachurch manipulations of the electorate.

    It's up to us to make the change we need.  We'll have a powerful tool for change in the Oval Office, but we can't make the same mistakes we've made for the past 20 years.  We need to lead and set both the tone and the direction.  I hope left wing blogs, progressive organizations and the Democratic electorate finally step up to the plate to eliminate this wedge issue once and for all.

    We're going to be waiting a long time if (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by iceblinkjm on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:29:06 PM EST
    our current leadership is any indication. I think it might be time for gays and lesbians to evaluate where we stand in the "progressive" movement and the Democratic Party. Following lock and step does not seem to be getting us anywhere.

    As legal professionals, people at TalkLeft (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:47:36 PM EST
    are in a very good position to effect positive change for gay rights.

    Schools won't allow books about gay families in the school library?  Sue those schools on behalf of the (heterosexual) children with gay parents.  Gay families exist, and their children have the right to access information about families like theirs.  Or sue the schools on behalf of the children who are our future gay citizens for getting a distorted perception of what their place in society could be.  Homosexuality is a biological fact, it occurs across the animal kingdom, and schools who teach, even by omission, that homosexuality is abnormal or wrong are doing a disservice to the children they serve.  Those children deserve to know who they are and why they have feelings that are different from 90% of their co-students.  

    Everyone's always in reaction mode instead of being proactive on this issue.  We're always responding to things like this crappy Proposition 8, instead of taking care of the business of making sure equality is a foundation of our great nation.  Get over your distaste/discomfort/titillation from the idea of gay sex, and start thinking of the impact of bigotry on society.  If gay parents are can't marry, their (mostly heterosexual) children are denied equality under the law.  That's wrong, mean spirited and anti-American.  So stop waiting for gays to win their rights and start demanding that our government and institutions stand by our values as stated in the Constitution.

    It's time to start fighting back against bigotry, and educated professionals should lead the way.

    Bittersweet, Ironic, What? (4.66 / 3) (#15)
    by talesoftwokitties on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:41:46 AM EST
    Thanks for pointing to the statistics BTD.  
    I had a toast last night to all those black folks who finally got to vote for and see an African American become president.
    Now, this morning to read this post and see that perhaps the high black turnout lead to the passage of this terrible proposition.
    Sad, very sad.

    Obama's Own Words (4.66 / 3) (#18)
    by BDB on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:43:46 AM EST
    I can't help but wonder this morning how damaging Obama's words were.  While Obama said in a letter he opposed prop 8, the yes on Prop 8 people were able to play Obama's voice talking about how his Christian beliefs made him believe marriage was between a man and a woman.  I got one of those robocalls yesterday morning.   He also embraced the support of religious leaders like Kmeic, who was a big Prop 8 supporter.

    Obama never forcefully fought prop 8 or, to my knowledge, denounced the use of his voice and image by those supporting the proposition.  Instead, his words were used to help pass it.   Just words.

    He put out a release (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:54:35 AM EST
    pushing back against the Yes to Prop 8 nonsense on Halloween.


    Tonight, in response to the mailer, the Obama campaign released the following statement:

    "Senators Obama and Biden have made clear their commitment to fighting for equal rights for all Americans whether it's by granting LGBT Americans all the civil rights and benefits available to heterosexual couples, or repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell," said a statement issued by campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Senator Obama has already announced that the Obama-Biden ticket opposes Proposition 8 and similar discriminatory constitutional amendments that could roll back the civil rights he and Senator Biden strongly believe should be afforded to all Americans."

    The fact that his words were manipulated is unsurprising and out of his control.


    A Release? (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by BDB on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:00:14 AM EST
    Wow, that is powerful.  It's too bad he isn't a better speaker, perhaps then he could've come out and said something.  Hey, maybe even with recorders or (gasp!) cameras around.  

    It's not entirely his fault prop 8 passed, but it's hard not to wonder whether he could've helped more with African Americans who did overwhelmingly support him.   We're not talking a group of voters Obama had to win over.   Now maybe he did things to oppose Prop 8 within the African American community here, but I wouldn't bet on it.  


    He was not a white knight on this. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:21:54 AM EST
    But he was featured in No on Prop 8 ads.  He put out his release and corrected the record.  

    I never expected him to lead on this fight.  And I don't know what factors led to the proposition passing.  I can't speculate on whether a speech about Prop 8 would've turned the tide in CA.  I imagine such a speech would sadly have hurt him in other states.

    Gay civil rights were hit hard last night.  And the problem is so big.  There is a lot to learn from this about where we are as a country.


    20/20 hindsight (none / 0) (#96)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:24:43 AM EST
    I wish he had just said "i like civil unions" instead of saying the words.

    Hard hard lesson.


    Politically it still isn't a good idea (none / 0) (#69)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:05:10 AM EST
    to support gay marriage nationally. Kerry didn't either.

    Maybe in 20 years we will have a president Gavin Newsom, who will bring in this change we also need.


    But Kerry did openly (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Landulph on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:15:54 AM EST
    oppose the anti-gay marriage amendments that were on the ballot in '04 (even as he reiterated his personal opposition to GM and support for civil unions), and may well have lost the election because of it.

    So did Obama (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:23:44 AM EST
    Kerry said he was in favor of civil unions instead of gay marriage....pretty much the same as Obama.

    The both walked the same line.


    Manipulated? Look, (3.50 / 2) (#100)
    by dk on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    Obama is personally a bigot, yes, a bigot, when it comes to gay marriage.  He has repeatedly voiced his opposition to gay marriage, and hides behind religion to justify his bigotry.  I am not religous, but if I was, I'd probably be even more annoyed than I am now by this fact.

    His words were not manipulated.  He said what he said, he has not disavowed what he said, and the words were merely repeated to people, many of whom voted for him precisely because of how much Obama stresses the importance of religion/bigotry in his own life, and in his views of what he thinks should be appropriate public policy.

    Frankly, I have no idea what is going to happen over the next four to eight years.  Probably, the middle class will get a few extra hundred dollars a year of takehome pay.  If so, yay.  But I do know that we are replacing one sexist homophobe with another sexist homophobe in the oval office.

    The only manipulation I see is that liberals who should know better have been manipulated into defending Obama on this issue.  There is no defense of him here.  He is an enemy on this issue, he has always been so, and now we have the data points to prove it.

    And you can rail on mormons as much as you want (and it is all deserved), but that has nothing to do with what I said above.


    I totally disagree with you. (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:36:24 AM EST
    And I was not manipulated into my beliefs.

    Perhaps you were manipulated ingto yours.


    Well, then maybe (none / 0) (#121)
    by dk on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:48:59 AM EST
    your views are closer to Obama's on this issue too.  You wouldn't be the only one, obviously.

    Maybe so: (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:59:55 AM EST
    and I phonebanked against 8, contacted friends, and donated money on three separate occasions.

    I wrote a poem about my friends' wedding, took my kids to see the newlyweds at the SF gay pride parade, and blogged over at dKos.

    Maybe Obama thinks like I do, but he is unwilling to lose the election for this. I agree with his decision, if not the words he used.


    Well, enjoy your agreement (none / 0) (#136)
    by dk on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:02:30 AM EST
    with his decision, and enjoy the civil rights that you have at the expense of others.

    I am devastated. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:16:45 AM EST
    I am not enjoying a thing.

    What did you do to defeat no on 8? Huh?



    You are enjoying (none / 0) (#199)
    by dk on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:34:03 PM EST
    your civil rights.  Rights that I do not have.  I have no patience for your self-righteous lectures.  You voted for a bigot whose bigotry helped take away my civil rights, and you will have to live with that.  

    If you're looking for some kind of medal for volunteering at a phone bank, you're hopeless.


    Intellectual Honesty (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by CST on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:38:14 AM EST
    If you are going to call Obama a bigot because he supports civil unions instead of Gay marriage than you better also be willing to say the same thing about Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and most other Dems in congress who have also publicly opposed Gay marriage while supporting civil unions for religious reasons.

    Ok, I'll be intellectually honest. (none / 0) (#119)
    by dk on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:47:45 AM EST
    They are bigots too.  Happy?  Where is your intellectual honesty, now?

    agreed (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:22:34 AM EST
    a bigot is a bigot, and IMO, a worse one at that if you hide behind "religious" reasons.  Because I guarantee you, were Jesus walking this earth now, he would be appalled by the bigotry.

    Fine then. (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:32:40 AM EST
    It didn't help, but (none / 0) (#40)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:55:04 AM EST
    the Yes on h8 campaign won mostly by lying abut the effect of gay marriage: saying that it would be taught in the schools, and that churches would lose their non-profit status if they did not marry gays.

    ANd the Yes on 8 people were advertising a good month before I saw a single No on 8 ad.

    We were outfunded and out organized by the bigots.


    True (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by BDB on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:01:19 AM EST
    The Mormon Church deserves most of the blame for funding their hate campaign.  Apparently lying is a Christian value.

    According to Huff Post (none / 0) (#193)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:20:58 PM EST
    diarist, Mr. Ahmanson, a trust fund older man, funded Prop 8.  He believes the U.S. Constitution should be set aside in favor of biblical law.

    the Yes on h8 campaign won mostly by lying abut the effect of gay marriage: saying that it would be taught in the schools
    Well, it was taught very recently in a MA school. The vid is not BS, at least not on the basic facts of the teacher teaching same sex marriage to very young kids in public school.

    Good (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by CST on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:23:35 AM EST
    I'm proud of my state for promoting openness among young people.  Maybe it's so they will better understand their fellow classmates who come from those backgrounds.

    It's never too early to teach tolerance.


    All good. (none / 0) (#160)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:28:42 AM EST
    As I've said many times here on TL, have any opinion/position you like, but at least be honest with yourself and accept the facts.

    Your facts are not facts. (none / 0) (#164)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:31:06 AM EST
    The Superintendent of Schools (none / 0) (#148)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:15:26 AM EST
    in CALIFORNIA said that was bull. What more do you want?

    C'mon. Seriously, Don't lie to yourself. (2.00 / 1) (#152)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:20:53 AM EST

    Home >
    News >

    Parents rip school over gay storybook
    Lesson reignites clash in Lexington
    By Tracy Jan, Globe Staff  |  April 20, 2006

    In a controversy with a familiar ring, parents of a Lexington second-grader are protesting that their son's teacher read a fairy tale about gay marriage to the class without warning parents first.

    The teacher at Joseph Estabrook Elementary School used the children's book, ''King & King," as part of a lesson about different types of weddings. A prince marries another prince instead of a princess in the book, which was on the American Library Association's list of the 10 most challenged books in 2004 because of its homosexual theme.

    ''My son is only 7 years old," said Lexington parent Robin Wirthlin, who complained to the school system last month and will meet with the superintendent next week. ''By presenting this kind of issue at such a young age, they're trying to indoctrinate our children. They're intentionally presenting this as a norm, and it's not a value that our family supports."

    Lexington Superintendent of Schools Paul Ash said Estabrook has no legal obligation to notify parents about the book. ''We couldn't run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them for moral or religious reasons decides their child should be removed," he said. ''Lexington is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal."

    The Lexington Super (none / 0) (#159)
    by CST on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:27:56 AM EST
    Is absolutely right.

    I hope more people follow his example


    Like I said below, all good. (none / 0) (#169)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:38:27 AM EST
    Have any opinion/position you like, but be honest enough to have that position w/o denying the facts.

    Regardless of what an superintendent of schools, or whatever, in CA allegedly said, same sex marriage was (is?) taught to very young children in Lexington.


    That is Lexington (none / 0) (#170)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:39:24 AM EST
    and in California, these things go through local school boards.

    ...and it will only be taught in school (none / 0) (#175)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:48:55 AM EST
    that same sex couples can marry, if same sex couples can marry.

    That's not what the measure was about (none / 0) (#179)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:52:46 AM EST
    there is nothing stopping schools from talking about "my two mommies" NOW that wouldn't also be there had prop 8 failed.

    It was disgraceful and misleading.


    OK, now your point is more clear, however (none / 0) (#188)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:14:03 PM EST
    I think it's a bit hair-splitty.

    I think there is a pretty major difference between talking in school about "my two mommies" and talking in school about "my two mommies are married."

    I don't think it's too much of a stretch to expect that two mommies marrying will probably only be taught in CA schools if it's legal for two mommies to marry in CA, and therefor I think you are wrong when you say yes on 8 was lying with regard to that point.


    You are wrong. (none / 0) (#191)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:18:56 PM EST
    It's a school board issue now, and would have been no matter the election results.

    It's a local issue, not state. Prop 8 is a state measure. It's really not that difficult to understand, and using Mass as a scare tactic is just ERRONEOUSLY giving people the idea that they would have no control over their schools...and people DO have control over their schools through local school board elections.


    Well, I don't agree, (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:26:04 PM EST
    but I won't belabor the point any further.

    You are the one lying (none / 0) (#163)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:30:30 AM EST
    Yes on 8 has NOTHING To do with this. NOTHING!

    You are the one lying.

    Frankly, I think teaching tolerance in schools is nothing but a positive thing, but prop 8 has nothing to do with that, that is an issue for LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS.


    Hardly. (none / 0) (#172)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:45:00 AM EST
    As I said before (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:54:34 AM EST
    there is nothing stopping schools NOW from teaching kids about "Bobby's two mommies" that wouldn't also be there had 8 failed.

    is not about schools teaching kids about "Bobby's two mommies," it's about teaching kids about "Bobby's two mommies are married."

    Clearly "Bobby's two mommies are married" is only likely to be taught if it's legal for Bobby's two mommies to get married.


    Doesn't that seem like (none / 0) (#201)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:40:42 PM EST
    putting your head in the sand though?  You could just as easily teach about Bobby's two mommies being married, and say they live in MA.

    The teaching in schools thing seems like a separate issue.


    Framing of this issue (4.66 / 3) (#101)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:28:23 AM EST
    in recent years has caught my attention...specifically referring to the use of the words "civil rights."  I have heard outraged AAs who think that civil rights has only one meaning...the 60s meaning for black people and "the civil rights movement."

    They claim the words "civil rights."  This is simple ignorance, of course, but the vehemence with whixh I've heard it expressed says we have quite a way to go...although you have to admit how far we've come to even pass civil union and equal treatment legislation in state legislatures.

    I don't like that. (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:36:29 AM EST
    I wish the black community would just say "Everybody deserves the same civil rights!".

    No difference who you are, who you love, no exceptions.  Everybody.  


    Sigh....I wish a lot of things. (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:45:59 AM EST
    I wish people weren't stupid...selfish...mean...thoughtless...unkind...fillintheblank...

    Thanks (4.50 / 2) (#203)
    by blueaura on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:54:14 PM EST
    for bringing this up, BTD. Last night I was at an election party that was split almost half Democrats and Republicans, but (with one exception) we were all gay and all worried about Prop 8 almost as much as the Prez election. And it was saddening to see what happened not only in CA but the other states as well. Banning gay adoption in AR? Despicable, deplorable and incomprehensible. People believe it's better for kids to be wards of the state, stuck in foster care or group homes, then to be in the care of a loving same-sex couple? Sad.

    It's not fun belonging to the last minority group it's still acceptable to openly discriminate against.

    I do think that race and religion both played a role in this loss. I'm personally so sick of bigotry being cloaked in religion. Christians pick and choose what parts of the bible they want to "enforce" (for lack of a better term). The many silly restrictions in Leviticus that are routinely ignored by Christians have been pointed out countless times. Why stick to gay-hate? Bigotry.

    While I'm elated at Obama's victory, I'm very saddened by Prop 8 and the others.

    this was the elephant in the room that no one (4.00 / 1) (#8)
    by iceblinkjm on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:37:40 AM EST
    wanted to discuss to do political correctness or some misplaced belief that Obama would stick his neck out on this issue. I've been hoping my gut would be proven wrong but I guess it was not meant to be and Obama was not what I though he was. Disappointing and soul crashing it is. How much longer am I going to be denied?

    Neck on the line? (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by BigElephant on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:46:25 AM EST
    This is a horrible proposition for Obama to stick his neck on the line for.  Why?  

    First, he did come out against the proposition.  

    Second, he's running for president in a relatively tight race.  He needed focus, not to be campaigning for every referendum that he opposes/supports.

    Third, is it worth losing an election for something that would just reappear on the ballot at the next chance?  

    This is one of those social issues that the people of the state need to lead on, and make it clear to the proponents of prop 8 (and others like it) that they're wasting their time.  They won't pass.


    they used audio and images from past statements. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by iceblinkjm on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:57:49 AM EST
    He gave them everything they needed to win among those demographics and he could have simply done one little quick presser addressing those groups and he did not. I am sure his internal polling was telling them where this was headed. I am sorry if I am a person of principals. I though he was as well.

    He did... (3.00 / 2) (#74)
    by BigElephant on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:08:15 AM EST
    Obama wrote a very clear letter in opposition to Prop 8.  And lets not kid ourselves, if Obama had tied his presidency to this proposition, it wouldn't have been enough for you.  Your "principles" are sorely lacking, my friend.

    History informs us (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:21:16 AM EST
    that typing your presidency to this issue can be a huge loser.*

    * See Bill Clinton and gays in the military.  He led with it and it clearly upset his effectiveness from the beginning.


    This is the sad truth. (none / 0) (#143)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:09:26 AM EST
    A letter!?!?! (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by iceblinkjm on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:22:56 AM EST
    So you admit he put winning above principals and division against unity. Thanks for ceding the argument. A group of folks lost rights last night thanks to a segment of voters who voted for Obama. He's supposed to lead his supporters and obviously did not do such a hot job on that front or on this issue. It does not bode well for us in his administration. I am not ceding this argument.

    As much as I am for equality (4.50 / 2) (#144)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:10:38 AM EST
    there are other issues at stake with the presidency, and losing the election to McCain/palin would reduce the chances for equality for decades due to the new SCOTUS judges.

    Give a little get a little (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:05:47 PM EST
    it's been working that way for 200 years now.

    And stop with the Hillary-would-never-ever pander to the Right crap once and for all, please.


    Put winning above principles? (1.00 / 3) (#123)
    by BigElephant on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:50:31 AM EST
    Where do you get such an absurd inference?  I never said such a thing.  I said, and please read my lips, that nothing Obama could do here would be good enough for you.  

    Obama's followers are the people of the United States.  Not Black people, you racist jerk.  Furthermore, no person has to vote the way their "leader" does.  The reason they give it to the people to vote, rather than the elected representative is for this very reason.  

    Goodness.  I've heard that reading comprehension had dipped to new lows, but it's a shame when you see how poor it is.  I try to explicitly write at about an 8th grade level in these comments, but even that seems to be too confusing for many of you.  Then again, I'm making the assumption that you're in 8th grade or beyond.


    So I am a racist AND a second class citizen all (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by iceblinkjm on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:04:20 AM EST
    in one day, thanks so much for that. I can now see why I had such a problem with Obama supporters during the primary, you see insult in any little thing. I am not the one who presented the polling data nor am I the one running for President.

    Funny... (1.00 / 3) (#173)
    by BigElephant on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:45:18 AM EST
    You're the one who saw insult.  I just called you what you were,  You were the one who thought it was an insult.  I just call them how I see them... no disrespect intended.

    The problem you had with Obama supporters is the problem you have with your own insecurity.  Don't blame others for your inabilty to construct a well-reasoned argument.


    you are a troll and should be banned. (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by iceblinkjm on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:55:10 AM EST
    Period. Have a nice day and enjoy your victory for bigotry.

    Don't listen to that guy. (none / 0) (#145)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:11:12 AM EST
    Im just worried... (3.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:31:49 AM EST
    this is going to turn into a gay vs minority thing when its really about gay vs. christians that dont understand their own doctrine thing.

    No (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:33:12 AM EST
    That is trying to sugarcoat it.

    Confront the truth - African Americans and Latinos have a pronounced bias against gays. That is a fact.


    Thank you for your not going the politically (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by rennies on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:41:59 AM EST
    correct route. Your honesty (not to say your powerful analysis) is so utterly refreshing.

    Thanks for telling the truth, BTD. (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Joelarama on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:19:33 PM EST
    As always.

    For the sake of accuracy, Latinos only (4.50 / 2) (#71)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:06:28 AM EST
    voted slightly more in favor of Prop 8 then caucasians. The big difference was in African Americans.

    That's just dumb BTD... (3.00 / 1) (#11)
    by BigElephant on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:38:54 AM EST
    Could gay marriage pass in Utah with its low percentage of minorities?  How about the ~40 other states in the union where it wouldn't pass?

    CA is one of the most liberal states in the country, and whites in this state barely supported it.


    Wha? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:50:41 AM EST
    Look, I am in good mood today, but if idiots are going to start calling me dumb, I will open up my can of whup ass.

    Your comment makes no sense.


    Please learn to read... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by BigElephant on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:01:15 AM EST
    I didn't call you dumb.  I referred to "that", which was your statement.  Your statement was dumb.  That I'll stand by.  And I'd love to see you can of whup ass.  As far as I know your can consists purely of deleting comments you don't agree with.

    My comment makes perfect sense.  You are saying that blacks and latinos have a pronounced bias against gays, and through omission making the subtle argument that whites don't.  That is, if it were up to whites, gays would have marriage rights.

    My point is that this is not consistent with the reality of what we see throughout the vast majority of the US, which is that whites also have a pronounced bias against gays.


    Available statisitcs (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:04:14 AM EST
    show whites almost perfectly split and blacks heavily against gay marriage.  

    RE "whites almost (none / 0) (#73)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:07:45 AM EST
    perfectly split:"  another gender gap?

    Actually, no. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:19:17 AM EST
    There is a slight gender gap in whites - women more tolerant, men less so.  It actually reverses in blacks, with black women less tolerant than black men.  That surprised me.

    I really expected a larger gap in women in general.  I thought we women were obviously the most accepting ones.  Guess not.


    That bears looking into! (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    Some sociology PHD candidate should do the research!

    It's not a phenomena I would have predicted re blacks.  Whites, yes...gender gap as I suspected.



    gender roles (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:05:30 AM EST
    are the last thing to go in any culture, and homosexuality is completely linked to that vibe. It's some sort of lizard brain thing. It's very difficult to overcome.

    In California... (none / 0) (#78)
    by BigElephant on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:10:05 AM EST
    If you read my post, I was referring to the country.  I believe that some states, like California, Massachusets, are more liberal.  But if it is a RACE issue as BTD says it is, it should cross regional lines.  Whites in Utah and Alabama should support gay marriage too... right?

    As I'm sure you are aware, the Mormon (none / 0) (#161)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:29:31 AM EST
    church vigorously support Prop. 8 and told its members do go forth and do likewise.

    More evidence of my point... (none / 0) (#89)
    by BigElephant on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:20:20 AM EST
    In Florida, a similar ban also passed with whites supporting it with 60% of the vote (blacks still at 70%).  So don't believe that it's just blacks that are against gay marriage.  If you did this ban nationally, it would pass with every ethnic group supporting it.



    This isn't a national (none / 0) (#99)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:27:45 AM EST
    referendum.  Point is moot.  

    Goodness... (none / 0) (#118)
    by BigElephant on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:46:13 AM EST
    Can you read?  Or has the whole thread been lost upon you?  Here's a simple question that a fifth grader can answer, "Why does it not matter if we're referring to a CA statewide ballot, a national referendum, or no proposed legislation at all?"  Consider this an open book test.

    Your insulting tone (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:07:29 AM EST
    is unwelcome here.

    If you are continuously being misunderstood, perhaps you should try to communicate more clearly instead of claiming your audience cannot read.


    How can I be clearer? (none / 0) (#174)
    by BigElephant on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:47:33 AM EST

    by hiring a copy editor (1.00 / 1) (#187)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:11:32 PM EST
    I already have a job.

    Your insulting tone (none / 0) (#141)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:06:27 AM EST
    is unwelcome here.

    BTD is not talking White vs. Black (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:42:13 AM EST
    He is talking hate (which is colorless) against gays.  It is so important to acknowledge this hate within the community, so that we can fashion a plan and a message that speaks to the community in question to get these people to understand the truth.  People aren't bad, they just have been tought bad things.

    Well... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:38:03 AM EST
    then I think a case could be made that this prejudice is founded in misguided christian values.

    Then make that case (4.66 / 3) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:39:54 AM EST
    My own personal exposure to how uncomfortable both subcultures are with "gayness" has nothing to do with Christianity.

    It is so embarrasing (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:37:55 AM EST
    To see people in my community attack homosexuality is very sad.  The inability of many of us to take the lessons of our own recent past and apply them to others in the present, is so unfortunate.  

    The desire to not think of homosexuality as normal has led to some serious health consequences, with black men who first and foremost are just not having safe sex, but then going back and forth between a closeted gay life and a false straight life, is ONE of the reasons for the AIDS epidemic in the Black community (and I am assuming the same is try for latinos).


    Theres always a foundation... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:44:48 AM EST
    for irrational prejudice and most of it in America comes from christianity... but I do want to say that Real christians understand how the religion is about tolerance.  Its the ignorant right-faux-christians who dont get it and insist otherwise.

    Because I fit into the white subculture (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:48:26 AM EST
    I can say that most of my own subculture's intolerance likes to find itself some sort of religious justification, but the homophobia of the Latino and AA subcultures in my experience is not grounded in a Christian Fundy belief system.

    Tracy, I think it's both (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:04:58 AM EST
    the fundamentalism of the religious influence in both the Latino (Catholic) community and AA (Baptist etc. etc.) community as well as the macho male components of both cultures.

    Fortunately, younger Latinos (5.00 / 0) (#157)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:26:33 AM EST
    seem to be more in favor of equality for gays.  Anecdotal.  Latino kids at tutoring very outspoken for "No on 8."  A Latino friend sd. his high school age daughter was also outspoken for "No on 8" especially because she has many openly gay friends at school.  

    It may not always be overt... (4.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:58:10 AM EST
    but I think theres a strong argument to be made that any society that embraces the current version of christianity is more likely to have irrational fear/hatred of homosexuality.

    One example of the opposite is that, in general, NA culture openly embraced homosexuality, yet when christians came over that view point changed.  Thats why I still maintain that christianity is the source problem.


    The problem is not in the Christian faith (5.00 / 0) (#198)
    by cymro on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:33:57 PM EST
    IMO, it's in the mistaken interpretations and practice of the Christian faith by many -- but not all -- churches and individuals.  

    I think (none / 0) (#60)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:01:25 AM EST
    and this is just speculation, that those communities think of white based gay culture as a corrupting influence on their cultures.  So instead of creating a Hispanic gay culture or a black gay culture, those communities essentially banish their GLBTs to the larger "white" gay culture.

    Anyone more experienced in this, please feel free to correct or add to this.


    better: (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarissa on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:38:11 AM EST
    African Americans and Latinos have a pronounced bias against gay marriage.

    I think both things are true (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:41:04 AM EST
    This particular ballot issue proves your statement above. But it is also true (and really no secret) that AAs and Latinos exhibit a lot of homophobia in general. Just ask a black or Latino man how it is to be gay in their communities. It's hard to talk openly about but, as BTD says, we shouldn't sugarcoat it. I think this has been a tough one for Obama to navigate.

    But in talking about it... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:48:04 AM EST
    we need to figure out how that came to be, and, with both communities so embracing christianity, I think thats the source problem.

    I tend to agree (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:51:01 AM EST
    It would certainly help if lots of black churches weren't preaching anti-gay marriage and quoting the bible to support it.

    La, la, la, la la. (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:43:12 AM EST
    You should listen to BTD.  He knows whereof he speaks.

    Sometimes the truth is not what we wish it were.  But it's still the truth.


    A lot of it (none / 0) (#70)
    by Pepe on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:06:25 AM EST
    is rooted in their religious beliefs. There is no sense in denying that. A lot is also rooted in how they see 'family values', the traditional mother/father thing.  A lot is also rooted in their culture, in America it is hard for any group to Out Macho Latinos and Blacks.

    Many Latino and Black families have gays among them. They don't reject them so they don't hate gays, they just believe in society the things I mentioned above are important and somewhat sacred to them.

    This is part of the new emerging majority. How many generation will it take to change those attitudes no one knows. It may happen it may not. It is one thing, like for instance, for young Cubans in Florida to move away from the Republicans because they unlike their parents and grandparents don't favor strong self-defense against the communism the earlier generation grew up with. It may be something quite different to change cultural feeling regarding gay marriage.

    I knew it would not take long, less than 12 hours, for the glee of victory to turn to internal disputes. Like Chicago said: "It's Only The Beginning".


    How many generations? (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:11:28 AM EST

    Youth voters of all races voted heavily against proposition 8.

    The cultural feeling is already changed in that demographic.


    So another twenty years (none / 0) (#140)
    by Pepe on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:05:35 AM EST
    before the previous generation dies out. And then what about new immigrants? What will their cultural preferences be when they come here to vote?

    latinos went 51:49 for Yes. (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:18:29 AM EST
    That is not unsurmountable.

    prop 8 yes voters not necessarily deluded bigots (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarissa on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:36:50 AM EST
    Why bring all these labels into it?  Isn't it possible that a lot of otherwise enlightened citizens just aren't comfortable with same-sex marriage?  Same sex marriage is not analogous to mixed race marriage - it's a completely different animal altogether.  Give it time.

    No... (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:39:59 AM EST
    they absolutely Are deluded bigots if they voted for prop 8... but yes, give it time.

    Look... (2.66 / 3) (#22)
    by sarissa on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:45:31 AM EST
    I think that consenting adults should be able to do exactly what they want - but why is it bigoted to want to draw the line for "marriage" at one man / one woman.  The line has to be drawn somewhere - you wouldn't agitate for plural marriage would you?  I certainly would not.

    Why does the line have to be drawn? (5.00 / 11) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:49:40 AM EST
    My own view is that the state should get out of the marriage business period.

    But when asked to vote to STRIP someone's constitutional right, I will vote no. Only a bigot would say yes imo.


    Not sure... (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarissa on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:54:20 AM EST
    But if the CA Constitution provides for these sorts of referendums, then as of last night or whenever this gets certified I would think that this is no longer such a right.  

    But then again I do custody work and know next to nothing about constitutional law - my law school transcript would also reflect this :)


    Yes (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:57:36 AM EST
    That is my point. They voted to STRIP gay Californians of their constitutional right to be treated equally on the issue of marriage.

    Not sure what your point is.


    The line is consenting adults... (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:52:58 AM EST
    What rational argument could be made otherwise?  No one is forcing you to marry someone of your same sex, so what does it matter if someone else can?

    Moreover, what if heterosexual couples could suddenly not get married but had to settle for civil unions?  Would you be ok with that?


    Ah, I see. (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:53:03 AM EST
    We're not really arguing about the moral failings of anonymous California voters, are we?

    Thanks (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by standingup on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:56:48 AM EST
    I think your choice of arguments says more than you realize.  Former Sen. Rick Santorum:

    "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

    How do you go from gay marriage, a commitment between two people, to plural marriage which obviously involves more than two people?  Perhaps you can't see the bigotry here because you are having trouble reconciling some of your own views on marriage.  


    your comments are sad and pathetic (5.00 / 7) (#97)
    by kenosharick on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:25:14 AM EST
    not to mention homophobic. You want to "draw a line" which is EXACTLY what the nation had when mixed race marriages were illegal. SAME THING. It is all about equality- you are allowed to marry the person you love and I am not- why the hell do we have to wait? I am sick of waiting for EQUAL RIGHTS!!!!!

    No (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by standingup on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:45:10 AM EST
    The issue is marriage regardless of whether it is between people of the same sex or people of different races.  

    Why should I or any other person be denied the right to be married to the person I love just because someone else is not "comfortable with same-sex marriage?"  Sorry but "otherwise enlightened" is BS and sugar coating bigotry.  


    Heh (5.00 / 10) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:48:15 AM EST
    Look, you will not like what I have to say to you. You are a bigot.

    What is is to you that two people who love each other want to get married? there is no rational reason to oppose it. Only irrational bigotry explains it.


    Plural Marriage (1.33 / 3) (#33)
    by sarissa on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:51:39 AM EST
    Why not three, four, or even seventy-five people who love each other and want to get married?  No rational reason to oppose this?

    Give the rational reasons (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:56:04 AM EST
    just one if you have one.

    Okay (2.00 / 1) (#64)
    by sarissa on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:03:03 AM EST
    How about two, off the top of my head?

    1.  It's bad for the children.

    2.  Single male surplus.

    your ignorance is mind-boggling (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by kenosharick on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:30:53 AM EST
    you seem to have fallen for every crazy right wing lie that has plopped out of the mouths of the radical christian right.

    Bad for children? (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by standingup on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:32:12 AM EST
    Wow, you truly exhibit your own bigotry with every additional comment you make on this subject.  I am saddened at the thought of you doing any custody work where at least one of the parents is homosexual.  I hope you would at least have the decency and ethics to turn down any work involving gay parents given your obvious bias with respect to homosexuality and parenting.  

    You are off-topic (none / 0) (#72)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:06:44 AM EST
    plural marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage.

    gay marriage... (1.25 / 4) (#76)
    by sarissa on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:09:39 AM EST
    has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

    It's bad for the children? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:12:53 AM EST
    Got a study for that?

    Single male surplus?  Is that hetero, homo or bi single male surplus?  Maybe it's not a "surplus" after all.


    Um, I think the "bad for children" (none / 0) (#156)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:24:37 AM EST
    comment was for plural marriage, not same sex marriage.

    Plural marriage on the level you describe (none / 0) (#63)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:02:49 AM EST
    could lead to a vastly degraded gene poll. There's one really rational explanation.

    There is some evidence that it (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:15:01 AM EST
    already has.  How else to explain the reelection of George Bush?

    FYI...I am redefining plural marriage to include serial monogamy.  The results aren't that encouraging...gene-poolwise.


    not to mention (none / 0) (#103)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:34:39 AM EST
    spousal benefits would be out of control

    Maybe not exactly the same "animal", (none / 0) (#116)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:44:20 AM EST
    but  the two share bigotry and unfair discrimination--- discrimination and denial of human rights of such dimension that, by definition, needed to be codified into the state's constitution by amendment. And yes, a reversal with come with time, and maybe at an accelerated pace with new political leadership and will.  After all, the great strides made in gay rights, to date, have been a result, in large measure, of grass root activism. Ronald Reagan, over eight years, could not even bring himself to utter the sound of AIDS let alone address the issue.  With the notable exception of President Clinton who, for example, expended much political capital on attempting to end discrimination in the military, other national leadership has good missing. President Obama's acceptance speech augurs well for the advancement of human rights and dignity for all.

    Yes, this is sad. (none / 0) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:26:32 AM EST
    Can it be reversed by majority vote in a future referendum?

    Yes (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:28:28 AM EST
    California (and Florida and many others) make a mockery of the very idea of a constitution.

    My theory on this issue. . . (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:34:40 AM EST
    (referenda) is that the best solution is reductum ad absurdum -- burden the system with so many ridiculous referenda that they are eventually outlawed.

    In particular, I'd like to see referenda targeted at the Mormon and Catholic churches -- perhaps a "California Child Protection Act" that states that any organization found liable for sexual abuse of minors by their staff forfeit all lands and real property in the state.

    I know it would be tricky to craft referenda targeted at religious groups that would pass federal muster, but there must be some forms of retaliation that are in the purview of the state.


    ya (none / 0) (#24)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:47:36 AM EST
    I like that.

    Initiatives and referenda (none / 0) (#44)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:56:01 AM EST
    are guaranteed in our liberal state constitution.  Undoing THAT is never going to happen, for it requires agreement of the state house, senate and a vote of the people.  The people see it as a curb AND a prod to an unresponsive government...and sometimes it actually works that way.

    I don't think it's wise to get rid of mechanisms which protect the people FROM the government.  What we need is a good deal more education and tolerance and there are ways to achieve that. Support Morris Dees! Slow, I agree, but instant gratification can't be the measure of progress.

    I am very sad about many of the measures which still limit the equality and freedom of some of our citizens but those targets are known and they will fall eventually.


    What's unreasonable about that idea? (none / 0) (#48)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:56:52 AM EST
    I like it.

    Actually it was not California, Florida, etc (3.50 / 2) (#28)
    by Pepe on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:48:43 AM EST
    that did this as many people voted no.

    It was part of the emerging majority everyone is bragging about brought the defeat of Prop 8. Blacks and Latinos whose backs Obama largely rode to victory who spoke their feelings on the subject and we will have to live with the triumphs that emerging majority brings us and the defeats.

    To me this is just an omen of things to come. Not only will the emerging majority dictate many things that others may not agree with but so will Obama. As I said last night several times, in his speech, if you cut out all the feel good stuff, substantively he pretty much said 'all that I promised will probably not happen in my first term'. Well give him credit, after he was handed the keys it didn't take long for him to tell us what he didn't tell us before he got the keys (maybe he did, with his 10 year plans). He also told us we will not always agree with him. That was a reinforcement of what he told us before, I guess we better believe him - no progress, no progressivism, rule from the middle, Blue Dogs win, Republicans didn't lose much given the circumstances. Soon we will all be what will become the new definition of We Are All PUMA's Now.

    The new emerging majority giveth, and the new emerging majority taketh away.

    Oh happy days.


    As I said last night... (none / 0) (#113)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:41:17 AM EST
    he said the same thing in the debates,...that due to the precarious financial situation there will be a need to prioritize and be frugal with any new programs.

    He most certainly did not spring it on us for the first time last night, that's just the first time you noticed.

    As for the rest, the majority always dictates to the minority...we're just starting to see the majority make a shift.  Which is why it is so important that the minority is always protected from the majority by their unalienable rights enshrined in the Constitution.

    Hopefully Obama restores some teeth to individual liberty after the erosions under past administrations.


    He answered a question (none / 0) (#133)
    by Pepe on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    in the debate that he had to answer.

    Before that question he never addressed the issue and after the debate he didn't include it in his speeches. If you want to think that an answer to a question was being upfront then go ahead. If you want to ignore that prior to the debate and after the debate he ignored the issue and went on with his open ended promises go ahead. I'm old enough and experience enough to know that I can't reason with euphoria. Yo seem to be fine that he walked back his promises. So be it.


    I never expected any promises... (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:16:47 PM EST
    to be fulfilled...these are politicians we are talking about.

    I feel the same about Obama as I did throughout the entire campaign...he is unable or unwilling make the necessary changes to ensure a long life for our republic, such as massive spending reductions, and a complete foreign policy and military overhaul.  But he is obviously preferable to McCain, and of course Bush, for mostly superficial reasons.


    OK legal question (none / 0) (#80)
    by Faust on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    So does this proposition directly change the constitution of california? Or is it a law that can be overturned by judicial review as being unconstitutional. There have been many initiatives in WA that have been overturned by the courts as unconstitutional. But I gather this will not be available for prop 8 based on what you say?

    It is now/soon will be a part of the constitution.

    Actually, let me re-write. (none / 0) (#114)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:41:22 AM EST
    It does not change/alter an existing part of the constitution, it adds to it like the Amendments to the US constitution.

    How about overturning it with a seminal decision (none / 0) (#52)
    by magster on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:58:15 AM EST
    from the US Supreme Court full of Obama appointees?

    It's not right for people to have to wait for that day though.


    No on Prop. 8 failed to frame the campaign (none / 0) (#127)
    by jumble on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:53:57 AM EST
    While clever, the summer-time ad portrayed a marriage-out-of-reach for a common bride as the core issue in the vote; it only resorted to a civil right argument in the closing days.  A bit too late not to look a bit suspicious (desperate?) to groups (AAs, women, latinos) whose past struggles traveled through a similar civil right struggle.

    Whether for this issue, or health care, living wage, education, etc., one cannot try to grab onto the cloak of civil rights as a last ditch effort.  This claim must be the foundation of and drive behind the movement.  So it's back to the drawing board and I hope that the defeat will not extinguish the legislative effort to overturn this aberration.  We must win by changing people's mind, not giving today's winners the excuse that judicial activism trumped the vote.  Just like Biden repeats ad nauseam, Champ, when you get knock down,...

    P.S.  As to the claim of "ownership" by a group of the "civil Rights" trademark, I can't deny that this attitude may exist in some quarters.  But last night, with Jesse Jackson's well-documented tears and Lewis' nostalgic interview, I couldn't get out of my minds that a generation of historic black leaders were eased into retirement, out of the public stage.  Not that their voices are now superfluous, but their task has been passed on to others.