Minorities Fear Trend from California Gay Marriage Ban

[Hissyspit]

Source: Reuters

Minorities fear trend from California gay marriage ban

By Peter Henderson – Mon Nov 24, 1:08 am ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California's gay marriage ban could open the door to legal discrimination against unpopular groups if the state Supreme Court allows the voter-approved measure to stand, blacks, Latinos, Asians and other minorities said.

The November 4 vote, supporting an end to legal same-sex marriage in the most populous U.S. state, has caused a nationwide furor as opponents of the measure decry what they consider a civil rights violation. California's highest court agreed on November 19 to hear a challenge, based on whether the state constitution requires support from the legislature -- as well as a majority vote of the people -- to strip rights from any group.

The court had recognized such marriages in May, and about 20,000 same-sex couples wed before the November vote. Those marriages may now hang in the balance. Connecticut and Massachusetts are the only states that allow gay marriage.

Legal scholars say the measure, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, breaks new ground by limiting the courts' ability to protect minorities.
"They could take away any right from any group," said University of Southern California Law Professor David Cruz, who filed a brief in favor of gay marriage in an earlier case.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081124/us_nm/us_gaymarriage_minorities

[BlooInBloo]

1. (facepalm) File that under Things That Would Have Been Good To Consider BEFORE Voting.

EDIT: Of course, that's assuming a particular lacks the simple human decency to permit other people to do things that don't affect the first guy, nor harm anyone, in the least, without a selfish motive.

[yardwork]

16. That tendency toward selfishness and majority bullying of minorities is what led to constitutions.

Apparently the lesson has to be relearned in every generation.

Message: We have a constitutions to protect minorities from the majority. The majority can look out for itself. It's the minorities that need protection.

Sigh. Or, as you say - facepalm.

[Bake]

43. The lesson ABSOLUTELY has to be relearned in every generation!

What's that about "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance?"

Bake

[No Elephants]

56. I agree with you as to human rights, but that is not what led to Constitutions.

[BR_Parkway]

22. Yes and No - Yes for the obvious reasons, but No because the more

into the mainstream the news gets that voting to restrict rights for one group can wind up opening a door to take away rights from any group should cause more people to think (I hope).

And if it causes a backlash against this sort of thing, it would be good to end it rather than face these legal battles every couple of years. If it stands, they'll head back to the NorthEast and start working on taking it away from gay/lesbian couples there, no doubt.

[EFerrari]

25. The article forces the conclusion that minority voters now regret

voting for H8 because it might effect them.

But we know that it was OLDER voters and CATHOLIC voters that made the difference. Minority young people did not vote for H8.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

47. I think H8 is backfiring bigtime. The H8ers overreached and at the wrong moment.

Imo, we're going to see gains in civil rights, not losses, are what the Catholics and Mormons and Dominionists paid for.

And that will be our best revenge.

[BlooInBloo]

49. Gawd I hope so! There does appear to have been a certain "waking of the sleeping gay giant"...

happening as a result of the vote - from reading Sully and others at least.

[Zhade]

91. I don't believe that. Most of the GLBT people I know don't believe that.

NT!

[yardwork]

127. Some people have decided that all white gay people are racist.

Nothing we say makes any difference. If we try to say that we're not racist, we just get told that we're racist AND liars.

[sui generis]

142. fuck 'em.

Those people seem to think that discrimination based on the idea of skin color is much more important than discrimination based on the idea of what you do or don't do with your pink parts.

They're stupid until further notice. We're not responsible for their feelings.

[yardwork]

143. Please alert on post #44 then. Thank you.

[QC]

144. The alert button doesn't seem to work well when it's under

homophobic bullshit. Funny, that.

[yardwork]

147. The mods deleted it. Thanks mods!

[xxqqqzme]

52. I don't know a single person who voted 'yes'.

My circle of friends, here behind the orange curtain, include young, old (over 65), black, white, catholic, non believers, Vietnamese, hispanic but all are Democrats. My family, however, (mother, father, sisters, brother, BIL, SIL, nieces etc.) is another story though - all white, young & old voted 'yes' and they're all publican'ts.

[EFerrari]

57. The reporting on H8 was sloppy as hell. Remember, the initial report was

that San Francisco turn out was very low, 58% iirc? And, that also turned out to be b.s.

But the cable channels just run with any POS that works for them at the moment.

[bliss_eternal]

109. I'm not entirely convinced this report....

...isn't more of the same. More baiting, intent on dividing minority groups. Here's yet another story encouraging finger pointing, blaming, shaming and more misunderstandings all around.

Yet another report has me considering a long term hiatus from watching, reading and/or listening to any form of media.
I'm pretty sick of it all.

:hi:

[shanti]

62. really...

unfortunately, i know of several in the OC who did vote yes on it - only one a dem tho, and he's white. the others are extended family (aunt/uncle) who are rightwing conservative xtians. we don't speak.

[JerseygirlCT]

84. But you know what? Think about that, too

The point is really the same.

This isn't about assigning blame. This is about realizing that the same weapon once trained on homosexual citizens could just as easily be turned on members of the LDS tomorrow. Or any other minority group - senior citizens, R. Catholics (not everywhere - NOT a minority up here, lol)... it doesn't matter. What happened set a precedent that should strike fear into EVERY citizen who gives it a moment's thought and cares about our rights at all.

[EFerrari]

87. Oh, of course! That IS the more important point.

And that's why this thing is going to fail, fail, fail. They blew it. They were too naked in their bigotry. :hi:

[Zhade]

92. Fantastic point.

NT!

[Joe Bacon]

139. My girlfriend and I WARNED "friends" about this

I'm Jewish and she's black. We REPEATEDLY warned a bunch of stupid coworkers and friends that we were the REAL target the Moron Church was after. We warned them that the Moron Church wanted to repeal the Loving vs Virginia case and our warnings were sadly ignored by a bunch of idiots who fell for the Moron church propaganda.

Make no mistake about it, The Moron church and their Catholic Pedophile allies with their biblebeater pals want to reinstate segregation. and to these fucking phony liars, the ends justify the means.

[WillParkinson]

2. Breaks new ground?

They argued the same thing in Wisconsin. Did it matter? No.

Stupid, stupid people.

[Xipe Totec]

3. It breaks new legal ground

Meaning, if this law is allowed to stand it will limit the courts' ability to protect minorities.

[DallasNE]

4. An Interesting Twist Is That

African-American's are one of the primary reasons Prop 8 passed in California. I didn't see the breakdown on Latino's but I would not be surprised if they too supported Prop 8. I suspect that you need to look no farther than the respective churchs to see why this is the case.

[Raineyb]

7. No they weren't. They're 6% of the population.

Are we starting this shit again?

Regards

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. And the measure passed by far less than 6%

The fact is that African-Americans and Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8. NOW they are worried that their disregard for equal rights will come back and bite them in the ass? It is far too late for voters' regret.

[mystieus]

13. The minority white vote still eclipse the majority black vote. get a clue and stop pointing fingers

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. I am well aware of that. It does not excuse the too-late concern of AAs and Latinos. n/t

[EFerrari]

37. There is no "too late concern of AAs and Latinos".

The Mitofsky poll that the media used to create your reaction has not been duplicated and in fact, other polls clearly show that older voters and Catholic voters put H8 over the top, not black voters. There is a Loyola poll from Los Angeles County -- where most likely black AND Latino voters are -- that show a much more even split even among ALL of those voters. In Alameda County where there is a large black pop of 14%, H8 went down in flames.

Don't take the bait.

[Zhade]

93. The bigger point is that NOT ONE MEMBER OF A MINORITY should have voted yes.

Hell, no one period should have voted yes to strip away others' rights!

[EFerrari]

100. It's not the bigger point, is it, when only the minority community

is continually singled out?

Don't let anyone divide us. Don't go for it.

[Zhade]

117. Please point to one post I've ever made singling out any minority group.

I don't do that.

[yardwork]

148. We need to start alerting on the posts accusing all gay people of being racist.

And the posts accusing individuals of being racist are also against DU rules. This nonsense has gone on long enough. Please alert.

[Zhade]

150. I did.

NT!

[Raineyb]

152. Nobody accused all gay people of being racists

But I damn well will call someone out as racist when they blame an ENTIRE RACE for Prop 8 passing when after going through the numbers it's shown not to be true. And you're right this nonsense has gone on long enough.

Regards

[Karenina]

53. How about the too-late concern of NO on 8?

Black Voters Not to Blame if Proposition 8 Passes
Filed by: Michael Crawford

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/09/black_voters_not_to_blame_if_proposition.php

September 22, 2008 4:00 PM

A troubling New York Times article on Proposition 8, the proposed California anti-marriage constitutional amendment, asserts that some marriage supporters are concerned that strong support for Sen. Barack Obama's presidential candidacy among Black voters may spell trouble for efforts to defeat the proposal to take away marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, is against the measure. But opponents of the proposed ban worry that many black voters, enthused by Mr. Obama's candidacy but traditionally conservative on issues involving homosexuality, could pour into voting stations in record numbers to punch the Obama ticket -- and then cast a vote for Proposition 8.

"It's a Catch-22," said Andrea Shorter, the campaign director of And Marriage for All, a coalition of gay and civil rights groups that recently started what it calls an education campaign around the state, focusing on blacks and framing the issue of same-sex marriage as one of civil rights.

While the possibility that some African-American voters may oppose our fight for equality seems to have caught some white LGBT activists by surprise, it seems that the proponents of marriage discrimination have anticipated this opportunity to capitalize on homophobia among some in the Black and Latino communities.

<snip>

The article does go on to cite the critical work of the http://www.jordanrustincoalition.org/ an organization of Black LGBT people and allies:

"This is black people talking to black people," said Ron Buckmire, the board president of the Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition, a gay rights group in Los Angeles. "We're saying, 'Gay people are black and black people are gay. And if you are voting conservative on an antigay ballot measure, you are hurting the black community.' "

Unfortunately work like this, efforts among LGBT people of color to dialogue with and work within communities of color, are among those given the least amount of resources and investment by LGBT organizations even as it becomes increasingly clear the key role that people of color can play in advancing LGBT civil rights. It is also clear that the work to build the necessary coalitions that strengthen the potential ties between communities of color and LGBT communities is something that needs to occur before we are facing a political crisis and not in the final hours of a campaign.

[Chovexani]

54. Thank you.

Of course, no one wants to talk about that.

[Karenina]

66. Hey, Babykins!

:loveya:

[No Elephants]

58. The gay community was not as organized or as well funded as opponents of same gender marriage.

[Karenina]

64. So let's CHANGE THAT!!! NOW!!!

[yardwork]

70. Why should we have to be? How would you like to have to defend your rights every year?

[Psephos]

111. Vigilance is the only guarantee of liberties and freedoms...for anyone. n/t

[Zhade]

94. About that last - I wonder if it's because there's the assumption that one minority group...

...won't be bigoted and short-sighted enough to vote to take away another minority group's rights.

[Karenina]

138. It's a VERY faulty assumption, we humans being what we are.

Solidarity between communities (tribes) requires hard work and a serious commitment to game theory.

The connexions between Palestinians and Israelis who have joined together for peace in one of the most intractable clusterfucks on this globe are a shining example. However, how many Americans have ever heard of their untiring and LIFE-THREATENING efforts? How many can fully take in the small "h" holocausts perpetrated in their names on every continent? In pursuit of exactly what, again? Me? Who?

See: Meehoo and Exactlywatt. http://oldpoetry.com/opoem/32623-Sheldon-Allan-Silverstein-The-Meehoo-With-An-Exactlywatt

Some learn from others' experience.
Some learn from their own experience.
Some are permanently stupid, can't or refuse to get it, no matter what,( ESPECIALLY if their salaries depend on NOT GETTING IT).

Was it Mark Twain, 'You cannot reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into.' Close, if no cigar.
That leaves the hard-core "Book" thumpers out. There may be a significant number of their go-alongs who, in the name of self-interest, can be peeled away with some interaction, truth-telling and education. The realization of the threat to THEIR rights will shock many into consciousness.

And when that's what it takes I call it a GOOD THING!

J say :hi:

[Zhade]

151. Great example, and a worthy point.

NT!

[Tempest]

48. Facts and figures don't lie

According to exit polls, whites opposed the amendment 53-47. But blacks supported it 70-30, and Latinos supported it 51-49. The polls have blacks at 10 percent of the electorate for this issue, with Latinos at 19 percent and whites at 63 percent.

According to the 2004 exit poll, approximately 700,000 blacks voted in that year’s presidential election, making up six percent of the electorate. In this most recent election, that percentage climbed to 10 percent, or just over one million voters. This would mean an additional 210,000 pro-Proposition 8 votes.

The measure passed by approximately 500,000 votes.

[EFerrari]

83. Well, yes they do.

L.A. County polls don't replicate the numbers and counties with large black pops don't either. This was Mitofsky -- the same people who brought you the bad 2004 polls.

Careful.

[yardwork]

18. Actually, the Latino vote in favor was only slightly higher than the white vote in favor.

According to that iffy exit poll, the Latino vote in favor of discrimination was only about 51%. White vote was slightly under 50%.

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. I sit corrected, thank you n/t

[yardwork]

82. No problem.

[sui generis]

40. that six percent number - where did you get that?

Does that make sense? California is 94% white and other minority? Only six percent of the black population voted in the Obama "historical" election?

Really?

Sounds like a made up number to me.

[Raineyb]

107. The black community makes up 6% of the entire state.

California is approximately 43% white, 36% Latino, 12% Asian and 6% black with Native Americans and Pacific Islanders making up the less than 1% each.

You could of course have checked the 2000 census which had the the black population at 6.7% I went with 6% based on the Daily Kos article which referenced a more updated count. There are other breakdowns other than the black/white divide.

Sounds like you're more interested in continuing your scapegoating but don't let a little thing like facts get in the way.

REgards

[Name removed]

126. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DallasNE]

115. Starting What Shit Again?

The facts are the facts. As this analysis shows, the church was very much involved -- both left and right. And it lines up with what I was saying. http://www.theseminal.com/2008/11/07/prop-8-analysis-not-necessarily-supported-by-the-numbers/

So, what are you protesting against again?

[Raineyb]

116. The scapegoating shit

Did you not see what this place was like on November 5th?

Regards

[sui generis]

141. she ain't right

I'm sure she's more rational on other points, hopefully, but apparently noticing irony is indistinguishable from scapegoating The Entire Race (whatever the fuck that is, given that skin color and culture of origin are not homogenous ANYWHERE unless you are directly from Africa with no cream in your coffee and no coffee in your cream).

On her behalf, I would like to add: d'oh.

[Rebubula]

46. Please...

-Facepalm-

:eyes:

[ksimons]

5. so if the court fails to fix prop 8's consequences, then

could folks put a Prop 8-U on the ballot that would invalidate and prevent future marriages between people whose religion historically espoused polygamy as one of it's tenets? I'm sure it could be a nice short proposition so it seems less scary, as they did with Prop 8.

[TommyO]

8. If Prop 8 stands, I'm all for that

[JerseygirlCT]

85. Theoretically, yes.

And fund an ad campaign that skews the purpose so that it appears to champion the right to "save marriage" or some such nonsense. We all know what miracles a good ad campaign can do.

I think as a matter of constitutional law, Prop 8 set a very, very dangerous precedent. CA needs to straighten this mess out, pronto.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Tried to explain this to many deaf ears

you know, before the election. When it mattered.

[racaulk]

9. All minorities *should* be afraid.

If a simple majority of the public vote can be used as justification for stripping rights from one minority, then all minorities are in danger of the same thing happening to them.

[RedLetterRev]

10. This has been a pattern for HOW many years now?

They always pick on the LGBTQ community first, the most vulnerable and least defended. When they're successful, they start whuppin'-up fear about immigrants and get sheeple to throw more of their own rights away. Then they head right for the African-American community and start bitching about affirmative action, with precedents for stripping rights already in hand. The wackogelical christofascists can't win outright and they can't win honestly: they have to attack the Constitution by stealth and by degrees by getting people to throw their own rights away under the guise of taking rights away from someone else.

The amoral, soulless cabal of the wackogelical power- and fear-mongers in bed with the soulless and amoral fascist Ponzi-schemers have kept this shell-game going easily, right under most folks' noses. It's easier to hate and to feel superior wrapped in a flag made of Chinese material and of Chinese workmanship and carrying a styrofoam cross and a plastic jahazis. To wit:

Consider one memo highlighted in a Capitol Hill hearing Wednesday that Scanlon, a former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, sent the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to describe his strategy for protecting the tribe's gambling business. In plain terms, Scanlon confessed the source code of recent Republican electoral victories: target religious conservatives, distract everyone else, and then railroad through complex initiatives.

"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them." The brilliance of this strategy was twofold: Not only would most voters not know about an initiative to protect Coushatta gambling revenues, but religious "wackos" could be tricked into supporting gambling at the Coushatta casino even as they thought they were opposing it.

Link to Salon article

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. NOW they are worried? Isn't it a bit late for that? n/t

[PSPS]

14. I don't see the proposition passing legal muster

There is already plenty of legal precedent that you can't withdraw constitutional rights via a "popular vote." It's generally assumed this will be struck down in the courts.

[GodlessBiker]

15. Can you imagine civil rights flipping back and forth, year by year, depending on the vote for ...

that year? It's very scary.

[yardwork]

19. The vote probably wouldn't flip back and forth. It would trend in only one direction.

Over the past eight years, constitutional amendments codifying discrimination against gay people have passed in most states. So far, not one state has remedied the discrimination.

[GodlessBiker]

36. Was any other vote as close as the CA vote?

[yardwork]

69. I don't think so. You're right, California's could flip back and forth.

The other forty states look like they've fixed their homophobia in place for some time, though.

[No Elephants]

60. Have there been lawsuits in those states challenging the validity of the amendment, though?

[yardwork]

71. No. I'm not a legal expert, but California is different because the right existed.

In California, the high court ruled that gay folks could get married last spring, and since then, something like 18,000 gay and lesbian couples have gotten married in California. The vote on election day took away a right that already existed.

In all other states, as far as I know, the constitutional amendments simply followed existing laws that already made marriages - and unions as well in most cases - illegal for gay people.

Only a few states have made gay marriage or gay unions legal, and California is the only one of them that turned that back with a majority vote.

In forty of our fifty states, gay marriage (and unions, in most cases) are already illegal and in many of those states voters have taken the extra step of making them unconstitutional.

[No Elephants]

59. I don't think there is plenty of precedent for the proposition that a Constitutional

amendment cannot alter Constitutional rights. Thing is, until the bans on gay marriage, constitutions had never been amended to limit individual rights, only to expand them. If you know of precedent, I'd be interested in the names of the case(s).

[cosmicone]

21. I place the blame squarely at the "no on 8" campaign...

while what happened was a travesty, I personally am of the opinion that the "no on 8" people decided to save their vast resources for other states, and chose to remain in a false sense of security till it was too late. They had TWICE as much money as "yes on 8" people but chose to have a weak response in the battle for people's minds.

All the points they are raising now would have made phenomenally powerful commercials -- e.g. a black couple discussing the prop and reminiscing about the past when interracial marriage was banned etc.

They just didn't educate the people enough and are now facing the fruits of their own ineptitude.

[OnionPatch]

24. I don't know the monetary situation, but

as a Californian, I can say I saw Yes on 8 stuff everywhere I turned and I mean EVERYWHERE. On TV, bumper stickers, yard signs.......I saw a total of one, single No on 8 sign and one single commercial. I know there had to be more support for the No side than that, but it definitely didn't show. Whether or not they had the funds, they did not have much of a campaign on the No side, at least from what I saw.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

42. I'm not sure of the monetary situation either,

but after I gave money once, they were hitting me up every day (sometimes twice a day) for more money. That couldn't have been a good sign.

[msongs]

28. yes blame no on 8 for the willful choice of the christians who voted yes. way to go! nt

[cosmicone]

31. I am not supporting people who voted yes on 8

my point is that many of them would have voted NO if they had heard the arguments from both sides.

[OnionPatch]

101. Yes, I think so, too.

Because it was losing in the opinion polls up until the Yes on 8 people started spreading their propaganda all over the place. Someone I talked to said they were going to vote against it until they "found out" that if gay marriage is legal, certain passages of the Bible would be against the law to read in public! The No on 8 people could have debunked this lie.

[yardwork]

104. So it's our fault that preachers lied? What about their responsibility?

I live in North Carolina. Can you explain to me - slowly, since I'm obviously stupid - how I was supposed to know that preachers were telling their congregations in California that if gay marriage CONTINUED to be legal, as it had been for six months, passages in the Bible would be banned?

How was I supposed to know that these lies were being told? And, assuming I'd found out, what was I supposed to do about it? Please do explain.

[OnionPatch]

113. I'm not saying it's your fault at all.

I think the people who voted for Prop 8 are scumballs. But they put forth a huge campaign with lots of bucks behind it. The No on 8 campaign needed to be huge to fight back successfully. I was only trying to point out that we were blindsided with the force of the Yes campaign. I wasn't trying to lay blame on anyone.

[yardwork]

128. Thank you, because you realize that this could happen to anybody?

Anyone's rights could be taken away by a majority vote.

[OnionPatch]

140. Yes.

I understand this and I think it will be overturned in the courts because of this. It was unconstitutional. However, if an opposition group were going to beat it at the polls, it would have had to have been much bigger and better organized than the No on 8 group was.

[TankLV]

29. But BLACK persons said HOW DARE US to compare Gay Civil RIghts to "Civil Rights" struggles for

BLACKS!

And too many HERE - on DU - said exactly THAT!

Sorry if I don't shed a tear now...

[cosmicone]

33. Not all blacks are doing it and

they are technically correct to some extent. However, I believe they are being defensive and many of them would have voted no if they had heard more from the no side. No on 8 was sleeping at the wheel.

[TankLV]

39. No - just the 70 to 80% who voted that way.

No not all - there were a precious FEW who didn't...

[noiretextatique]

67. please provide a reference for that statistic

black people only made up 10% of the vote and 5.2 million people voted YES on 8.

[atimetocome]

134. Here........

Forum Name General Discussion: Presidential
Topic subject Talk to me. Why did blacks vote overwhelming against gay rights in CA?
Topic URL http://www.

democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7786978#7786978
7786978, Talk to me. Why did blacks vote overwhelming against gay rights in CA?
Posted by Hamlette on Wed Nov-05-08 03:16 PM

I'm an old white lady in Utah (not mormon) who remembers my Mom putting black arm bands on us kids and taking us to civil rights marches and anti war demonstrations. We were raised to be tolerant of everyone and if it doesn't hurt you, its none of your business.

I honestly can't get my head around blacks voting to add a constitutional amendment in California to ban gay marriage. In one sense I feel betrayed, even though I'm straight. Not that I'm owed one damn thing but because I thought we were all in this together to fight intolerance. What am I missing?

Anyone?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1

[Karenina]

88. I sure do hope you spew all that bile out of your system

in time to help us all out setting things aright and before it kills you. Here's some music to soothe the savage soul:

Stand By Me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A_ma2h0idk

We Can Work It Out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ij6nBQfQoo

[Zhade]

96. Man, I remember - I started a thread about that which ended in a homophobe being banned.

That was a nightmare thread. Soooooo angry.

But the fact remains that our struggles are identical - both groups hated and targeted for things they don't choose to be.

(Btw, petgoat, if you're reading - fuck you, you homophobic bigot.)

[bitchkitty]

123. Wow, you must have superpowers.

To have talked to all of the African Americans in the state of California.

I don't think you should let racism win your heart because it's broken over Proposition 8. Instead of blaming, you should start fighting.

If it's not worth fighting for, it's not worth having.

[mondo joe]

32. Yeah, let's blame the victims. Way to go.

:eyes:

[cosmicone]

34. This is about a lesson for future elections

If we don't do a post-mortem and see the faults with the campaign strategy, we are likely to repeat the mistakes.

It is about education, not about blame.

[mondo joe]

35. In one post you say you *blame* No on 8. Then a few posts later you say it's not about *blame*.

Your words, not mine.

[yardwork]

75. So what do you suggest for the other forty states?

[Karenina]

51. Even the ACLU did a beautifully flawed ad...

NO COUPLES OF COLOUR! A few adopted kids here and there. :spank:

http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2008/11/not-one-black-lgbt-couple-in-n-001334.php

Not one black LGBT couple in "No on Prop 8" Ads. Why?

Rod McCullom | Posted November 12, 2008 8:35 AM

Despite questionable exit polling data, the mainstream media and its gay counterparts continue to blame black voters for the recent passage of Prop 8 in California--escalating tensions, prompting scuffles and racial epithets at street rallies as well as thousands of mean-spirited comments across the gay virtual community. While gay activists begin to debate the strategy executed by No on Prop 8, the obvious question arises: How much outreach was done to the black community?

Very little. Jack and Jill Politics slams the racist talking points pushed by revisionist hack Andrew Sullivan and sex columnist Dan Savage.

I followed 'No on 8? through Andrew Sullivan's blog. I clicked on every ad that he posted. I never saw ONE that was pointed towards the Black community. If 'No on 8? was serious about trying to address the Black community, they couldn't come out with an ad with Black gay folks who wanted to get married? With Black gay folks who wanted to be married and had children? California's a huge state, and they couldn't find 2 Black homosexuals and 2 Black lesbians with children who could have made an ad?

[No Elephants]

61. I can agree with you only a bit. First, I think the money was about even. Second, churches have

been preaching against homosexuality intensively for at least a couple decades. It's really tough to combat that.

[LostinVA]

68. Yup, blame the victims

[yardwork]

72. So it's my fault that a group of people took my rights away because I didn't defend it well enough?

I live in North Carolina, by the way, where it's already illegal for me to get married to my partner. But it's my fault, as a gay person, for not doing more to prevent other people from taking away my rights?

Which of your rights would you like to defend tomorrow? You probably belong to a minority of one kind or another. Maybe you have blue eyes, which puts you in a minority. I have brown eyes. Maybe I'll get together with all the other brown-eyed people and we'll decide that blue-eyed people shouldn't be allowed to be married. We'll put tens of millions of dollars into the campaign and get a lot of preachers to tell their congregations that they'll go to hell if they don't take away rights from blue-eyed people.

And if we win, it's your fault. You didn't defend yourself well enough.

That sound about right to you?

[donco6]

89. Why should ANY group have to DEFEND their inalienable rights?

And then get chastised for doing a "lousy" job. (Lousy in quotes as I have no idea what kind of job they did).

[Zhade]

95. Sure, blame the victims instead of the BIGOTS who voted against our rights.

That makes a lot of sense.

:sarcasm:

[theboss]

23. I don't think this a real fear to be honest

Minority rights are protected at a federal level.

The problem with gay rights is that they have never been successfully defined as "minority rights."

[TankLV]

26. So NOW they care about it becase of loss of THEIR rights, but still FUCK THE GAYS...

Sorry, but this is still a BACKHANDED SLAP TO ALL GBLT PERSONS.

If these assholes were secure in THEIR rights, they would once again, CARE LESS ABOUT SUPPORTING EQUAL RIGHTS FOR GBLT!

THAT'S what everyone seems to be missing...and what makes us MAD AS HELL!!!

[Auggie]

27. I wouldn't worry

The Prop 8 vote was a morality issue (for some people, that is), not an ethnic one.

If they held the vote again, right now, I think 8 would lose in a landslide.

[No Elephants]

63. What makes you think people changed their minds in a couple of weeks?

[yardwork]

73. What about the other forty states that have codified laws against gay people?

Florida passed their constitutional amendment making gay marriage illegal by 63%, and I don't hear much about anyone in Florida regretting their votes. Arkansas, Arizona, all the states who voted bigotry into their state constitutions and laws?

California will probably remedy their law. The rest of the country, not so much.

[Zhade]

97. Yet those who voted yes voted against the rights of people who do not choose to be what they are.

NT!

[nichomachus]

30. What everyone forgets is

that we are all minorities.

About 99 percent of us has some identifiable characteristic or association that could make us a target.

Are you black, latino, Pacific islander? Are you a Unitarian, Wiccan, atheist, agnostic? Are you the wrong kind of Christian (which changes with alarming regularity)? Jewish? Maybe you weren't born in the US.

Almost all of us can be sliced and diced into a minority group. Are you divorced? That would actually be a majority group, given the divorce rate, but the sad thing is -- as the OP says -- some people have an alarming tendency to vote against their best interests.

I'm not saying blacks and latinos were "responsible" for Prop H8, but they did vote in overwhelming numbers for it -- and it was clearly not in their best interests to subvert the Constitution, but they did.

I was having a discussion with an AA friend about Prop H8 and she was saying how long she had to wait to get her rights. I reminded her that if Prop H8 stands, she really doesn't have those rights, as they can be taken away in an afternoon. So, they're not really "rights." They're merely current fashions.

As posters have pointed out above, blacks are only 6 percent of the population in CA. That means if you had a well-funded propaganda campaign of hate and lies, as we did with Prop H8, someone could get 51 percent of the population to vote against certain rights for black -- or latinos -- or Unitarians -- or, ironically, Mormons or Catholics.

Prop H8 threatens every one of us.

[TankLV]

38. What too many are all to willing to forget is that SOME minorities are more equal than OTHERS!

Tell ya what - if these jerkoffs who are sooooo concerned about THEIR rights NOW work REAL HARD to get GBLT persons back THEIR rights FIRST, then maybe we can find the time ONCE AGAIN to fight for THEIR fucking rights...OK?

[yardwork]

78. I disagree with your approach. It's not a matter of us vs. them.

This is a matter of human rights. All human rights need to be held sacred. We need to get away from identity politics entirely and recognize that all humans deserve rights.

I'm not going to get petty and start letting other people lose their rights just because I've lost mine. That's going in the wrong direction.

[yardwork]

81. This is what I keep saying. I would think that the Mormons in particular would realize.

The Mormons claim to have been discriminated against since their group began. So why did they spend tens of millions of dollars to take away the rights of another minority group that includes many Mormons anyway?

If every gay person in California wanted to be petty and mean, they could organize a kick-ass campaign to throw the Mormons out of California, but gay people wouldn't do that because we're not as organized as the Mormons.

[Zhade]

99. No - we wouldn't do it because we're not hateful bigots, unlike the majority of them.

NT!

[Zhade]

98. It's not the same - at least not regarding religion, which is a CHOSEN trait.

We don't choose to be who we are. Believers do.

They still shouldn't have any less rights, but let's not pretend the groups are the same.

[sui generis]

41. I don't give a shit what color who was when they voted

BUT if you were a minority and you voted for this, you're a fucking dumbass.

We told you you were gonna run over the baby, we told you you were running over the baby, and now ya done run over the baby.

d'oh.

But you knew it was going to get ugly.

And all the rest of the apologists here: please go straight to hell or get out of the road - we know you didn't vote for it, so don't feel bad that others did. You're defending nothing. This isn't a racial issue, as you are trying so desperately to point out. It just has IRONY. That is all.

[yardwork]

79. That goes for every minority, and everyone is some kind of minority.

Blue-eyed person? Minority.
Natural blonde? Minority.
Shorter or taller than average? Minority.
Born in a sparsely populated state or county? Minority.

And so forth and so on forever. Every single individual in this country probably has some kind of minority status. How would they feel if the majority voted away their rights, just because they felt like it.

[EFerrari]

86. That's mighty generous of you to overlook the undeserved attacks

on minority voters on this board from a stupid overreaction to a flawed poll.

Irony? You betcha.

[sui generis]

125. thank you for noticing

again, I don't give a shit.

the so-called undeserved attacks were people throwing themselves under the bus.

Do you really believe we're a bunch of racists? Come on.

[EFerrari]

131. It was too easy to go there. Before the votes were even counted

before any facts were even checked. Skepticism flew out the window and there were multiple threads and posts cussing and insulting the black community on the basis of one MITOFSKY poll. As if we'd never been burned by that @sshole before.

Most of us get some kind of shame activated simply by talking about this, but, it was too easy to go there. And his effed up numbers are still being quoted here as if they are on stone tablets somewhere and as if they haven't been problematized, let alone debunked over and over.

What do you think? Or, what would you think if you gave a shit? A lot of people here were hurt by the way that went down. It was not only wrong but hurtful and divisive just at the moment we need to stay together and fight back. We really do this stuff to ourselves, finally, when we let ourselves be manipulated and so nakedly, too.

[sui generis]

132. actually there were two sides of that coin

sf you know that. There were people here just willing to generalize on both sides, and that's the hurtful part. As usual, everyone else is caught in the generalization (sorry I just generalized :P )

I posted that skin color and abstracts were different in principle but not in practice, but even recently I think even skin color is an abstract.

What difference does it make if someone votes against "allowing" another american to get married because of the idea of skin color or what we choose to do or not do with our pink parts?

The irony was merely that some people of color would not see that a vote for Prop8 was a vote against themselves and any other idea of minority. Merely by noting that, it became a condemnation of the entire minority community, rather than an observation. That weakness was in the eyes of the beholder, for the most part. Hopefully the best we can do is forgive each other our insecurities and move on.

We can't be responsible for how every person might take a comment, and people love to flame here, and worse, play victimized. Just like admitting or accusing someone of being gay is not provable here, any other form of admission or accusation of bigotry or skin color or penis size is not verifiable, reliable or even relevant, but my goodness we all seem to think it matters anyway.

Especially the XXL-ness of weeners.:evilgrin:

[EFerrari]

133. LOL

[defendandprotect]

45. That's why it's so essential we all work to support gay marriage ...

and ALL civil rights for gays --

When they're not busy trying to oppress women or people of color,

then its homosexuals ...

[yardwork]

80. It's essential that we all work for human rights for all.

And, frankly, this doesn't require a lot of work if everyone is doing it. How much time and money does it take to vote against a bigoted proposition, as opposed to voting for it?

The people who invested a ton of time and energy and money were the groups who decided to go after the rights of gay people to get married and adopt children. If nobody went along with them, the rest of us wouldn't have to spend a lot of time and energy reminding people not to vote for bigotry.

[prostock69]

50. It's obvious that Propisition 8 was soley backed by

Religious belief that homosexuality is an abomination of God. Therefore, they believe homosexuals are an abomination of God. First they go after the rights of Gays to get married. What's next? Rights to vote? Rights to exist at all? This is a very slippery slope we are sliding down. Let's look at this for what it really is: The start of Christians trying to irradicate a group of people that they HATE and DESPISE because their GOD does. Who's next? Blacks? Hispanics? Athesits and Agnostics? Anyone who doesn't BELIEVE what THEY believe are targets.

[Zhade]

102. Hear, hear.

This is why secularism in government is so vitally important.

[Strathos]

55. If a member of a minority voted against gay marriage, theydeserve the same

done to them. I've been saying it's a slippery slope for years now and finally people are starting to feel the same thing.

If they can take away my right to marry, what right are they gonna take from you?

[fed_up_mother]

65. States can't vote to take away rights that are recognized by federal law!

I think he's overstating his case.

[yardwork]

74. A lot of rights were only recognized by federal law since the 1960s.

Rights come and go rather quickly around here lately.

[fed_up_mother]

76. But they are recognized

He's overstating the case.

[yardwork]

77. The right of habeus corpus is no longer recognized in the United States.

Gay people were allowed to marry for six months in California and now they can't, and many people feel that it's the fault of gay people for not defending their rights strongly enough.

No rights are guaranteed until the vast majority of people in a country agree that human rights for all are sacred. When the people of California are willing to take away rights from a minority on a straight up-down vote, no minorities' rights are safe.

Whose rights will the people of California go after next?

[Zhade]

103. Federal law doesn't recognize GLBTer equality under the law.

NT!

[fed_up_mother]

112. I know, but other rights are recognized by federal law, so they aren't comparable

Again, he's overstating his case...by a mile.

[Zhade]

90. This is exactly why not one single member of a minority group should have voted for it.

They had to know they were voting to strip rights from another minority by popular vote, which is not only unconstitutional but sets a dangerous precedent.

Yet a good friend of mine at work, a black man who should know better than to put anyone's rights to a vote, argued with me that not letting people vote on the issue would violate people's rights!

[EFerrari]

105. So, why are you lumping all minority voters together?

Some women voted for McGeezer.

Some Latinos voted for H8 and so did more white people. I'm both.

Will you lump me into those groups, too?

Who is most disconnected from a peer group? Senior voters. Who are most likely to vote in a block? Church groups. That's who passed this thing.

Seriously. Stop ragging on minority voters because our younger voters voted this thing down.

[madville]

114. How are women a minority?

There are more women than men in the population and female voters outnumber male voters in elections by a few percentage points. How are women a minority?

I think the reason such a large percentage of black voters voted against GLBT interests is that their voting block is made up by church groups and seniors to a significant degree.

[LostinVA]

124. You have to be fucking kidding me

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

130. You'd have to find a way to verify that "large percentage", wouldn't you.

Women may be numerically more but as a group, they have been disenfranchised as much as or more than any numerical minority. They are a numerical minority in just about every power structure in our culture. Does that make sense?

[Zhade]

118. Show me where I did that.

NT!

[EFerrari]

129. Maybe that wasn't your intention but your second sentence seems to do that.

Nevermind, Zhade. It's not worth a dust up.

[Zhade]

136. No, you're not getting off that easy. Don't you DARE accuse me of bigotry and then run away.

Here's my second sentence:

"Yet a good friend of mine at work, a black man who should know better than to put anyone's rights to a vote, argued with me that not letting people vote on the issue would violate people's rights!"

Do you disagree that any member of a minority group that's been so heavily oppressed in the past as his should know better than to think like this?

Nowhere in that sentence is there a single suggestion that I'm grouping all AAs together. You owe me an apology.

[yardwork]

149. Please alert on the personal attacks and groundless accusations.

This poster has been accusing all gay people of being racist here for weeks, and it needs to stop.

[Karenina]

106. Including Mormons?

:shrug:

[bliss_eternal]

110. But aren't we discussing human beings...?

...aren't humans fallible? Prone to making mistakes? Having errors in judgement?

Is it appropriate to assign "should" when we discuss human beings with freedom of choice, and the ability to make choices that frequently aren't in line with their "best interest"?

[Zhade]

119. I expect them to be smarter in this day and age. My bad for believing the best in them!

NT!

[bliss_eternal]

120. .

.self-delete

[IndianaGreen]

108. Duh?

Do you think the public would have voted in support of Brown v. Board of Education? Think again!

[yardwork]

135. Notice that that sign was posted in Lancaster, Ohio.

It wasn't (and isn't) just the south.

[Solly Mack]

121. NSS

[terrya]

122. They should have thought of that before voting for Prop 8.

They have nobody else to blame. They brought whatever might happen on themselves.

[rocktots]

137. Didn't Blacks vote AGAINST gay marriage in droves?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08314/926243-84.stm?cmpid=news.xml

Actually, the turnout for Obama hurt the gay marriage issue, 70% voted against it. There was alot of anger over this issue apparently

Whoops, already discussed....my bad...

[maxrandb]

145. Some Industrious Person

should introduce a ballot initiative to define "Political Party" as Democratic, and outlawing all other political parties. Then it would be illegal for anyone from the Repuke Party to appear on the ballot in California.

Hey! It should get at least 50.1% of the vote! Apparently, that's all it takes to rip someone's civil rights away from them!

[maxrandb]

146. I'm thinking "CONservatives"

would be a little careful about "minorities" being discriminated against!