Prop 8: White Bias and Blaming the Black Community?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 8:40 PM GMT
    BlkMuscleGent saidHere's an article by another black lesbian on Prop 8. Read it! It's different.


    The court will overturn Prop. 8
    LaDoris H. Cordell
    Tuesday, November 11, 200
    8

    Shameful is the only word to describe the vote on Proposition 8, which amended California's Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. In the blink of an eye, marriage for same-sex couples has gone from legal to illegal, leaving 18,000 same-sex couples in marriage limbo. What just happened? We now know that 52 percent of the electorate supported the ban on same-sex marriage, and that men and women supported it in equal numbers. Because of our small numbers - African Americans accounted for 9 percent of the yes on Prop. 8 vote, and 4 percent of the no on Prop. 8 vote - we did not determine the Prop. 8 outcome. The shocker was that a whopping 70 percent of African American voters and 53 percent of Latinos threw their support to the ban.

    As an African American lesbian who has devoted her life to advocating for the civil rights of all, and especially for the black community, I am angry, and I feel betrayed. Given African Americans' long and tortured history of fighting against discrimination and exclusion, it never occurred to me that black folks might vote to oppress others in exactly the same way. But that's just what they did. And with that vote, African Americans have now placed the issue of black homophobia, long an elephant in the room, front and center. Yet, for me, this blacklash is old news.

    I have been witness to sermons in which black ministers have preached about the ravages wrought by homosexuality. And I have sat with black congregants who prayed for the deliverance of homosexuals from their perverse affliction. For these black churchgoers, homosexuality is not a civil-rights issue; to the contrary, for them, homosexuality is all about behavior - sinful sexual behavior in which people like me choose to engage.

    Actually, I did not engage in this behavior for many years. Growing up, I attended public schools, where I excelled, earning straight A's and lots of awards. I went to college, then to law school, opened a law practice in a black community, became a law school administrator, and then went on to a successful career on the bench. Along the way, I got married and had two wonderful daughters. I was perfect. And then one fine day, as these black voters would have it, I chose to simply throw it all away - to become an Untouchable? Ridiculous. I did not choose to be gay anymore than I chose to be black.

    In the arena of civil rights, the black church has always been a beacon of enlightenment. On Nov. 4, 2008, some black churches became bastions of benightedness. I am convinced that no amount of talking, explaining or pleading - and no amount of money - will ever persuade those African Americans, and others similarly minded who opposed same-sex marriage on religious grounds, to change their views. Reason in the face of religious bigotry is impotent. Although some may disagree, I believe that the No on Prop. 8 campaign could not have done anything more to reach those voters.

    That said, I am entirely convinced that same-sex marriage will again be legalized in California, the 52 percent vote notwithstanding. Just as the courts overrode the will of the majority in ordering desegregation of public schools and public accommodations, and just as the courts ignored the demands of the electorate by opening voting to people of color and the right to marry to mixed-race couples, so, too, will the courts, in defiance of the majority, however slim, reopen the doors of marriage to the gay community. The Sturm und Drang with which society greeted these courageous and controversial court rulings was ultimately replaced by acceptance. I predict that same-sex marriage will follow the same path. After all, 18,000 couples already have wed and the world has not stopped turning. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court boldly bestowed upon gay couples the right to marry. I have no doubt that these brave justices will do it again.

    Walter White, past executive secretary of the NAACP, a black man who was so light- skinned that he was always mistaken for white, famously wrote, "I am white and I am black, and know that there is no difference. Each casts a shadow, and all shadows are black." I am black and I am gay, and I know the same.


    LaDoris H. Cordell, a retired Superior Court judge, is a special counselor for campus relations to the president of Stanford University.


    The tone of this article is incredibly different.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 8:46 PM GMT
    Ducky44 said I'm just GOD SMACKED! Me condescending never...that is just not in my nature young man.(sarcasm)icon_rolleyes.gif

    Please tell me that you are not calling me a "A self loathing bigot". If so you are wayyyyyy of the mark.icon_rolleyes.gif

    I think you need to think very carefully before you toss that statement around.icon_rolleyes.gif


    I


    Unlike you I have tried to stay away from personal attacks against people in this forum. you on the other hand make back handed comments and then when called out on them make jokes about it. I was calling the author of the original article a self loathing bigot as I had previously
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 8:49 PM GMT
    The SacBee article you reference, onejock, has not run the numbers. There were a little over 11 million votes cast on Prop 8. Taking the article at its word, that the historic voting percentages of blacks and Hispanics were 7% and 13% of the electorate respective, and that this time around they were 10% and 18% respectively, and even attributing all of this increase to Obama rather than better Get Out the Vote efforts or changing demographics of the state, or whatnot, means that there were a little more than 330,000 additional votes by Blacks and a little over 550,000 additional votes by Hispanics compared to normal. Based on their voting breakdowns from the exit polls, that means that there was a net of a little over 132,000 additional yes votes from the Black votes, and a net of a little over 44,000 additional yes votes from the Hispanic voters, for a net total of a bit more than 176,000 additional yes votes. The proposition passed by more than 500,000 additional yes votes compared to no votes. This change in the racial demographics of the vote accounts for around 35% of the differential--not enough to flip things. It was a factor, but by itself it would not have been decisive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 8:57 PM GMT
    BlkMuscleGent saidHere's an article by another black lesbian on Prop 8. Read it! It's different.


    The court will overturn Prop. 8
    LaDoris H. Cordell
    Tuesday, November 11, 200
    8

    Shameful is the only word to describe the vote on Proposition 8, which amended California's Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. In the blink of an eye, marriage for same-sex couples has gone from legal to illegal, leaving 18,000 same-sex couples in marriage limbo. What just happened? We now know that 52 percent of the electorate supported the ban on same-sex marriage, and that men and women supported it in equal numbers. Because of our small numbers - African Americans accounted for 9 percent of the yes on Prop. 8 vote, and 4 percent of the no on Prop. 8 vote - we did not determine the Prop. 8 outcome. The shocker was that a whopping 70 percent of African American voters and 53 percent of Latinos threw their support to the ban.

    As an African American lesbian who has devoted her life to advocating for the civil rights of all, and especially for the black community, I am angry, and I feel betrayed. Given African Americans' long and tortured history of fighting against discrimination and exclusion, it never occurred to me that black folks might vote to oppress others in exactly the same way. But that's just what they did. And with that vote, African Americans have now placed the issue of black homophobia, long an elephant in the room, front and center. Yet, for me, this blacklash is old news.

    I have been witness to sermons in which black ministers have preached about the ravages wrought by homosexuality. And I have sat with black congregants who prayed for the deliverance of homosexuals from their perverse affliction. For these black churchgoers, homosexuality is not a civil-rights issue; to the contrary, for them, homosexuality is all about behavior - sinful sexual behavior in which people like me choose to engage.

    Actually, I did not engage in this behavior for many years. Growing up, I attended public schools, where I excelled, earning straight A's and lots of awards. I went to college, then to law school, opened a law practice in a black community, became a law school administrator, and then went on to a successful career on the bench. Along the way, I got married and had two wonderful daughters. I was perfect. And then one fine day, as these black voters would have it, I chose to simply throw it all away - to become an Untouchable? Ridiculous. I did not choose to be gay anymore than I chose to be black.

    In the arena of civil rights, the black church has always been a beacon of enlightenment. On Nov. 4, 2008, some black churches became bastions of benightedness. I am convinced that no amount of talking, explaining or pleading - and no amount of money - will ever persuade those African Americans, and others similarly minded who opposed same-sex marriage on religious grounds, to change their views. Reason in the face of religious bigotry is impotent. Although some may disagree, I believe that the No on Prop. 8 campaign could not have done anything more to reach those voters.

    That said, I am entirely convinced that same-sex marriage will again be legalized in California, the 52 percent vote notwithstanding. Just as the courts overrode the will of the majority in ordering desegregation of public schools and public accommodations, and just as the courts ignored the demands of the electorate by opening voting to people of color and the right to marry to mixed-race couples, so, too, will the courts, in defiance of the majority, however slim, reopen the doors of marriage to the gay community. The Sturm und Drang with which society greeted these courageous and controversial court rulings was ultimately replaced by acceptance. I predict that same-sex marriage will follow the same path. After all, 18,000 couples already have wed and the world has not stopped turning. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court boldly bestowed upon gay couples the right to marry. I have no doubt that these brave justices will do it again.

    Walter White, past executive secretary of the NAACP, a black man who was so light- skinned that he was always mistaken for white, famously wrote, "I am white and I am black, and know that there is no difference. Each casts a shadow, and all shadows are black." I am black and I am gay, and I know the same.


    LaDoris H. Cordell, a retired Superior Court judge, is a special counselor for campus relations to the president of Stanford University.

    Great article,

    Though her first point is wrong actually. if the yes on 8 vote was 9 percent of the vote and the no was 4 percent of the vote then if those numbers were reversed and 30 percent f african americans had voted yes then 8 would have failed, in fact we only need 2 percentage points to make the measure fail.
    looking at the numbers more closely if 30% = 4% and 70% - 9% then 40% equals 2.5% of the vote. so if the black vote had gone 50-50 then the vote would have been 50.5 percent no on 8, and 49.5 yes on 8 and 8 would have failed, so is it really not the black communities fault?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 9:12 PM GMT
    Chango,


    These are two very excellent articles written by two different women giving examples of their reality. There is nothing wrong with that.

    90% of the ills that Cannick wrote still occurs in this country and that's the point she was trying to illustrate.

    You do not carry the stigma of being the son and daughters of slaves and having to deal with being hunted down like animals being hung from trees, having fire hoses turned on you by police officers.

    Having your church bomb and those occurred in the south back in the 90's.

    This takes nothing away from Matt Shepard I was outraged when those kids got off really I was equally outrage when the Matt Shepard Bill did not pass.

    That is also what I concentrate my efforts on. A NATIONAL HATE CRIME LAW BEING PASSED.

    This is more important to me that Gay Marriage.

    It's not an indictment against the GWM community it's just the truth.

    We have a common struggle not the same struggle because our history in the country of subjected to bigotry is not the same.
    It does not take anything away from both our struggles, it give us a jumping off point to work with.

    That is what you do seem to understand.

    So when Jake made the outrageous statement of that "GAYS ARE THE NEW BLACKS"!
    We GBM were outraged because the GWM experience in the country is not the same as the African Americans or GBM and the racism within our own gay community is palatable.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 9:14 PM GMT
    chungo44 said

    ....



    Great article,

    Though her first point is wrong actually. if the yes on 8 vote was 9 percent of the vote and the no was 4 percent of the vote then if those numbers were reversed and 30 percent f african americans had voted yes then 8 would have failed, in fact we only need 2 percentage points to make the measure fail.
    looking at the numbers more closely if 30% = 4% and 70% - 9% then 40% equals 2.5% of the vote. so if the black vote had gone 50-50 then the vote would have been 50.5 percent no on 8, and 49.5 yes on 8 and 8 would have failed, so is it really not the black communities fault?


    You're a 3rd law student, Chungo, and should know better.

    As MSUBioNerd notes, your "reversal" theory illustrated above is a flying pig!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 9:23 PM GMT
    Actually, Chungo, you're getting the numbers wrong too. The second article says that Blacks were 9% of the Yes vote and 4% of the No vote. That doesn't mean that they were a total of 13% of the vote, but actually 6.6% of the vote (considerably less than stated in the article onejock referenced). If Blacks made up 6.6% of the vote on this issue, and voted in the 70/30 breakdown that we're all using, that means that the black vote accounted for about 58% of the differential by which Prop 8 passed. If you were to assume Blacks were 6.6% of the voters and all other racial groups voted exactly as those groups actually did, you'd have to change the Black vote to 65 No, 35 Yes in order for the vote to come out as No.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 9:46 PM GMT
    BlkMuscleGent said
    chungo44 said

    ....



    Great article,

    Though her first point is wrong actually. if the yes on 8 vote was 9 percent of the vote and the no was 4 percent of the vote then if those numbers were reversed and 30 percent f african americans had voted yes then 8 would have failed, in fact we only need 2 percentage points to make the measure fail.
    looking at the numbers more closely if 30% = 4% and 70% - 9% then 40% equals 2.5% of the vote. so if the black vote had gone 50-50 then the vote would have been 50.5 percent no on 8, and 49.5 yes on 8 and 8 would have failed, so is it really not the black communities fault?


    You're a 3rd law student, Chungo, and should know better.

    As MSUBioNerd notes, your "reversal" theory illustrated above is a flying pig!



    Getting a little angry? I misread the first paragraph, I also said it is a great article. you are right I am a law student not a scientist, actuary or a statistician, maybe I was paying attention to class.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 10:06 PM GMT
    coolHUSSEINdude saidlondon_nyc said, "Er, no. She's not after quid pro quo but rather pointing out that there are some issues that she-- and many other in the black community-- consider far more pressing than gay marriage and for her, she'd rather deal with those issues first. It's prioritisation, not quid pro quo."


    Yeah, rrrriiiighhhhtttt! Because in order to support some other "more pressing" cause in a priority line of thinking, she had to deny this one. It wasn't in sequence!!!!!

    Come on now. Be real. Like that's what was going through her, or anyone else's mind, when they voted to support Prop 8.



    First, let me say what follows applies to most people who have posted to this thread.

    Now, everyone is arguing about prioritzing in a different context than that in which it was said/meant. Cannick was not saying that in the process of voting on, November 4th, 2008, that black people did not vote no on prop 8 because they were prioritizing. She is saying that it was not a priority on her list as she was working on get black people to the polls to vote. If you want to get black people, or anyone for that matterBOLD TEXT GOES HERE, to vote, then you have to inspire them with issues/matters that most directly affect them. Or at the very least, make it relevant to them and communicate why something is right or wrong. One cannot assume anything without running the risk of fucking themselves (which many did). Gay marriage was not an issue/matter that directly affected many black voters nor did anyone make it relevant to them. Yes, voting no on 8 was the right thing to do from a civil rights perspective. But, because of the priortizing of those getting blacks on board to vote and the failure of the no on 8 campaign, religion and homophobia, inspired by the middle class Christian code, the world (not just the gay community but the WORLD) was done a grave injustice in part by the small black California community even though the black vote did not make or break the success of prop 8. Whites, latinos, religious fanatics and countless others also did the world an injustice.




    Oh and lets not take things out of context. It is fine to voice your opinion but you want to make sure that your opinion is not based on something that was not even said.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 10:08 PM GMT


    Apologies for not answering earlier, but at the hospital seeing to Mom.

    Ducky44, there's a lot of white gays that would be willing to talk to straight black communities, but would they be given any credibility as they are supposed white privileged pervs according to many?

    For those black guys here that have approached their straight families and friends about this, my hat is off to you and I'm so glad! My skin colour is a big handicap, even though part of me is of Jamaican slave heritage.

    I fit into neither 'group' and perversely, come from both.

    Vayu, it hurts to hear that AfAms will mostly only marry each other. Barak is mixed race. I am mixed race. Before the mid sixties most churches and many states would have prevented our parents from marrying.

    ...I need a coffee....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 10:11 PM GMT
    chungo44 said
    BlkMuscleGent said
    chungo44 said

    ....



    Great article,

    Though her first point is wrong actually. if the yes on 8 vote was 9 percent of the vote and the no was 4 percent of the vote then if those numbers were reversed and 30 percent f african americans had voted yes then 8 would have failed, in fact we only need 2 percentage points to make the measure fail.
    looking at the numbers more closely if 30% = 4% and 70% - 9% then 40% equals 2.5% of the vote. so if the black vote had gone 50-50 then the vote would have been 50.5 percent no on 8, and 49.5 yes on 8 and 8 would have failed, so is it really not the black communities fault?


    You're a 3rd law student, Chungo, and should know better.

    As MSUBioNerd notes, your "reversal" theory illustrated above is a flying pig!



    Getting a little angry? I misread the first paragraph, I also said it is a great article. you are right I am a law student not a scientist, actuary or a statistician, maybe I was paying attention to class.


    You seem hellbent on proving that blacks made Prop 8 pass.

    This is a complete and utter falsehood.

    So, I'm hellbent on declaring that you are wrong.

    That's all.icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 10:14 PM GMT
    I have said before and will say again that I don't think it was blacks that made prop. 8 pass. on a quick read her numbers misinterpreted looked like it did. my issue is with black people saying oh my god gays are ridiculous they don't know what oppression is like. I hate to tell you but guess what you can't be fired for being black but I can be fired for being gay.

    I also have an issue with this woman saying your doing it all wrong but then not giving any advice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 10:25 PM GMT
    chungo44 saidI have said before and will say again that I don't think it was blacks that made prop. 8 pass. on a quick read her numbers misinterpreted looked like it did. my issue is with black people saying oh my god gays are ridiculous they don't know what oppression is like. I hate to tell you but guess what you can't be fired for being black but I can be fired for being gay.

    I also have an issue with this woman saying your doing it all wrong but then not giving any advice.


    If you think no one can be fired for being black, you're wrong. I'm not saying this happens routinely. I'm just saying that it can happen. While it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of race, sexual orientation, or both, there are plausible ways to circumvent this restriction. In California, for example, people are employed at will. This means, essentially, that CA employers can fire employees as they please. Yet many employers exercise this right with prudence because of potential discrimination charges, among other things. Let's get real, though--how easy is it for a sacked employee to win an employment discrimination case?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 10:26 PM GMT
    Isn't the main force behind the passing of Proposition 8 organized religion? It is not so much any particular ethnic group, but people with a certain view of the world. And that view sees gays as not "normal", that homosexuality is a choice, that the lifestyle is abhorrent, and therefore they should be denied the right to marry. Perhaps I am exaggerating a bit, but I believe that was the main driving force.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 10:31 PM GMT
    BlkMuscleGent said
    chungo44 saidI have said before and will say again that I don't think it was blacks that made prop. 8 pass. on a quick read her numbers misinterpreted looked like it did. my issue is with black people saying oh my god gays are ridiculous they don't know what oppression is like. I hate to tell you but guess what you can't be fired for being black but I can be fired for being gay.

    I also have an issue with this woman saying your doing it all wrong but then not giving any advice.


    If you think no one can be fired for being black, you're wrong. While it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of race, sexual orientation, or both, there are still plausible ways to circumvent this restriction. In California, for example, people are employed at will. This means, essentially, that most CA employers can fire employees as they please. Many employers exercise this right with prudence because of potential discrimination charges, among other things, but let's get real--how easy is it for a sacked employee to win an employment discrimination case?


    That is where you are wrong It is not illegal for and employer to discriminate based on sexual orientation in this country. Title 7 does not apply to sexual orientation. so while you can bring a case for employment discrimination based on race you cannot in the vast majority of this country do that based on sexual orientation. I live in NY where luckily the Human Rights law does cover sexual orientation but nationally that is not the case, and even then I am still not afforded the same rights that a black person is because they can sue under the HRL and title 7. While it may not be easy to win a discrimination case, at least for you it is possible.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 10:32 PM GMT
    SurrealLife saidIsn't the main force behind the passing of Proposition 8 organized religion? It is not so much any particular ethnic group, but people with a certain view of the world. And that view sees gays as not "normal", that homosexuality is a choice, that the lifestyle is abhorrent, and therefore they should be denied the right to marry. Perhaps I am exaggerating a bit, but I believe that was the main driving force.


    You are completely right as I said earlier the black vote is not the reason that prop 8 passed mormon money is!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 10:38 PM GMT
    chungo44 said
    BlkMuscleGent said
    chungo44 saidI have said before and will say again that I don't think it was blacks that made prop. 8 pass. on a quick read her numbers misinterpreted looked like it did. my issue is with black people saying oh my god gays are ridiculous they don't know what oppression is like. I hate to tell you but guess what you can't be fired for being black but I can be fired for being gay.

    I also have an issue with this woman saying your doing it all wrong but then not giving any advice.


    If you think no one can be fired for being black, you're wrong. While it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of race, sexual orientation, or both, there are still plausible ways to circumvent this restriction. In California, for example, people are employed at will. This means, essentially, that most CA employers can fire employees as they please. Many employers exercise this right with prudence because of potential discrimination charges, among other things, but let's get real--how easy is it for a sacked employee to win an employment discrimination case?


    That is where you are wrong It is not illegal for and employer to discriminate based on sexual orientation in this country. Title 7 does not apply to sexual orientation. so while you can bring a case for employment discrimination based on race you cannot in the vast majority of this country do that based on sexual orientation. I live in NY where luckily the Human Rights law does cover sexual orientation but nationally that is not the case, and even then I am still not afforded the same rights that a black person is because they can sue under the HRL and title 7. While it may not be easy to win a discrimination case, at least for you it is possible.


    So, it's illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in certain parts of the country--such as New York and California.
  • Barricade

    Posts: 457

    Nov 11, 2008 10:39 PM GMT
    This topic was brought up on a black site I go to and this was one of the feedbacks left that I liked. That vote was not the consensus for the entire black population. There are lots of blacks who are seen it for what it was, DISCRIMINATION.

    "why was this ish even on the ballot in the first place? isn’t this like asking people who like hiphop to vote on whether country music should exist? just treat everybody equally, ok? we are really losing our grip when we have to VOTE on whether we recognise somebody else’s rights! but i do have to admit i agree with the guy in the article who said that minorities really shouldn’t be turning against other minorities. i’m like wanda sykes on this one, “if you ain’t gay, then don’t marry one!” And ladies, gays are not competition! These other hoes are! " lol



    . CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL!!! icon_biggrin.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 10:39 PM GMT
    chungo44 said

    You are completely right as I said earlier the black vote is not the reason that prop 8 passed mormon money is!


    I think that this is an easy overgeneralization.

    (A) Money from Mormon voters accounted for 44% (the last accurate number I have come across) of the funding for Yes on 8. And the Mormon Church, though not donating any money directly, essentially directed its members to donate and get active....becoming the lead organized religion we should target.

    (B) However, the Catholic Church hid behind the Mormons via their conservative front group, the Knights of Columbus. They have far more voters and money in California than do the Mormons. So they are also one we should target.

    (C) A distant third would be all the evangelical Christian churches that targeted African American community with religious propaganda to vote Yes on 8.

    But, we have to start somewhere. So will start with (A).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 10:44 PM GMT


    ... and as both of us noted in another post on another thread, religions were very clever about this, as their persuasive arguments cross racial lines, causing the fraction-ing up of those they are oppressing. Very conniving of them.

    God, whoever or whatever that is, likely weeps at the horrors inflicted by those organizations that claim to be of god.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 10:48 PM GMT
    fastprof said
    chungo44 said

    You are completely right as I said earlier the black vote is not the reason that prop 8 passed mormon money is!


    I think that this is an easy overgeneralization.

    (A) Money from Mormon voters accounted for 44% (the last accurate number I have come across) of the funding for Yes on 8. And the Mormon Church, though not donating any money directly, essentially directed its members to donate and get active....becoming the lead organized religion we should target.

    (B) However, the Catholic Church hid behind the Mormons via their conservative front group, the Knights of Columbus. They have far more voters and money in California than do the Mormons. So they are also one we should target.

    (C) A distant third would be all the evangelical Christian churches that targeted African American community with religious propaganda to vote Yes on 8.

    But, we have to start somewhere. So will start with (A).


    I find it surprising that the Mormons, a church that is not nearly as large as the Catholic or Protestant denominations, would be so active. Are they afraid that if California "falls" that Utah is next?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 11:00 PM GMT
    The proximity might be part of the reason, Surreallife. If we look at states with constitutional bans on same sex marriage, the closest states to Massachusettes which have one are Ohio and Virginia. Those are several states away--to get to OH requires going through NY and PA, to get to VA requires going through NY, PA , and MD. On the other hand, CA and UT are separated by either NV or AZ, and NV has a pretty substantial Mormon population as well. There may be more fear of nearby gay weddings resulting in local couples, particularly since CA doesn't have the strict residency requirements for marriage that MA does.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 11:14 PM GMT
    Wow this thread flooded with responses all of a sudden.

    london_nyc, I see what you're saying in regards to black people feeling excluded from the gay community. I misunderstood the author's point.

    I also agree that pointing out the black (or mormon, or christian) communities and calling them names won't get us anywhere.

    But like many other people have mentioned, the author's argument that black people voted yes on 8 because they have other inequalities to fight for makes no sense. I recognize that in voting against prop 8 the (majority of) black community would be giving up their religious convictions, but they would not be giving up their rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 11:18 PM GMT
    People must stop equating the gay or black communities with the christian or mormon or any other religious community (a word I'm beginning to dislike very much). People can change religions and often do. People cannot change being a homosexual or their color. There is no equivalence between social organization and inherent personal qualities.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 11, 2008 11:58 PM GMT
    McGay saidPeople must stop equating the gay or black communities with the christian or mormon or any other religious community (a word I'm beginning to dislike very much). People can change religions and often do. People cannot change being a homosexual or their color. There is no equivalence between social organization and inherent personal qualities.


    Good point.