Poll: Black Voters Not Responsible for Passage of Same-Sex Marriage Ban in California

This is simply a false argument.

Virtually no one, that I've seen, has said that black voters were solely responsible for the passage of Prop H8.

Jillian is not really being truthful

The Scalia "opinion" you refer to in your argument is from a dissent the Justice wrote in Lawrence vs. Texas. As I'm sure you, the $400 -500k per year lawyer, are aware, dissents are not controlling and do not carry any weight as precedent. As an attorney, you are trying to advocate for your position. If, however, you have to rely upon the thin thread of a dissenting opinion for support, you obviously do not have much of a case. Whether you realize it or not, your arguments are not reasoned - but rather tortured - in an effort to justify your opinion. It's certainly fine to hold any opinion you like, but to try and put forth some sort of legal justification in support of your bias, only shows how much your opinion lacks any rational grounding.

Further, if you had done any actual research on the cases surrounding polygamy or incest, you must know that the issues always center around the important state interest of health (both physical and mental). There has never been a judicial opinion that I know of that has expressed the notion that a state can restrict marriage to heterosexuals because it is necessary to protect the health or safety of the gays who are getting married, or the health and safety of the community as a whole. If you are going to make (what you believe to be) a clever analogous argument, you might want to try to make sure there is some alignment between the facts of the case at hand, and your analogy.

Finally, I just want to say that you appear to be a young, and somewhat inexperienced attorney who has fallen into the lawyer's trap. In our professional lives we are paid to advocate for our clients' positions whether we agree or disagree with them. We become so accustomed to this reality that we begin to believe that we are capable of justifying any opinion or bias we hold in a manner that seems irrefutable. The problem is that our biases and opinions are just our emotional responses. By trying to parse out some sort of reasoned justification for them, we expose ourselves as the irrational humans we are, and make a mockery of ourselves.

You don't think gays should marry - alright, we get it. But don't try to find some legal justification for your position. Remember, laws change. Slavery, segregation, and denying a woman the right to vote were well entrenched in the law. Never forget "the law is an ass."

RE: Is blaming really helping the cause?

To Ethen,

The fact that this particular poll states that Latino voters supported Prop 8 by 61%, and Latino, Asian and black voters combined comes to 57%, calls into question the accuracy of the CNN poll right there. This poll indicates that the black vote, at the very least, was below 57%( unless the Asian vote was just extraordinarily low). Which would probably give us around 52% or so.

Jillian of CA

Davidbronx might be rude, but much of what he says is righteous, you are a bigot, against "gays" marrying and adopting? After all we know how well children do after a life in foster care. Shes a "breeder" who hates children, hope your not for banning abortions as well. I can imagine you ranting behind your computer, the damn gays will spread their gayness to the children. Gasp sob think of the children, while there are many unwanted unloved children that will grow up in foster care only to wind up homeless, in prison or dead, but that's better then getting "gay cooties"? Immature bigots are so fun. Heterosexual white males are the most common pedophiles, so don't use the sex offender excuse. (Lots of pedophiles in the foster care system while we are on this subject so what are you protecting them from) Funny you claim to have a gay for your childs godfather, but don't want them around or adopting children? You... Need therapy.

While were at it, who died and gave you ownership of the term marriage? Its not a christian term anymore obviously, my local government allowed me to marry with a judge in a park, no mention of anything Christian, because gasp I am not a christian at all. I do however happen to be a woman who fell in love "this time" with a man. FYI I could have just as easily fallen for a woman because, well I have always been attracted to other woman. Its now a state owned term, if the state grants it, well guess what, it can't be used for discriminating on a legal and consensual act.

Oh FYI your judgmental behavior isn't Christian, remember the old adage, judge not, lest ye be judged.

Hey DavidBronx, what can you say about being compassionate after writing what you did in your post? I'm all for gay rights (as long as it doesn't include the right to adopt those "nasty little children" you talk about), but not for redefining the definition of marriage. Make up your own new word for it and get your rights, but it's not marriage.

On a separate note, to the author of the article, who cares whether the blacks actually caused the measure to pass or not. That's a stupid way to look at things. Instead, look at how significant it is that such a higher proportion of blacks voted for the proposition compared to other demographic groups. That's what is interesting.

DavidBronx

Jillian of CA and others who oppose gay marriage. It's obvious that your income and education level have done nothing to make you a smarter more compassionate person. You are still a homophobic little witch. We are not asking to get married in your precious churches but since we are expected to pay taxes and do everything else breeders do then we should be able to get married and divorced to another member of the same species of the age of consent just like breeders. You can say what you want but you're a bigot. If we can't get married then we should at least get tax breaks and not have to pay to send breeders' nasty little children to school or pay for their health care. Jillian if you are a breeder my fondest is wish if for you to have gay children. That old line about some of my best friends being gay or part of another oppressed minority does not cut it in the 3rd millennium. So what you are saying is that you are and EDCATED bigot, how lovely that someone wasted all that money on a souless and uncompassionate jerk like you.

Here we go again... Not everyone opposed to gay marriage is an uneducated bigot.

I am opposed to changing marriage laws to include gay marriage. And as hard as it may be to believe I'm not uneducated, living in a trailer, and watching Jerry Springer inbetween Ku Klux Klan rallies. I am a woman in my mid thirties, with a law degree and and an income somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000K/ year. I am not a religious zealot and actually only ever make it to church at Christmas when my parents are looking. I'm not sure how many gay people I know since I don't go around asking, but I do know my closest cousin, happens to be gay because he is open about it. He is also my son's godfather.

I am not anti gay. But I am anti gay marriage. And being so doesn't make me a hater or small minded.

Gay marriage is not a question of Equal Rights. Gay adults have the same rights that all adults have in this country. They DO have the right to get married, the same as we all do. They have a right to marry another adult of the opposite gender.

The argument is they don't have the right to marry someone they "love". I reject to notion that gays are incapable of feeling love for people of the opposite gender. I'm sure many gay men love their mothers, sisters, friends etc. What is meant by "love" is sexual attraction.

So what we are debating is whether we should redefine marriage to accomidate the sexual preference of a very select few within our population, without regard to the legal ramifications that will have.

Pro gay marriage advocates try to quickly dismiss the water shed argument, with good reason. It's a real and if people understood it better would never support changing the legal definition of marriage.

A very basic explaination. Tradtionally governments had no interest in marriage it was the provence of the church. The government can't make a law just to make one there must be a legitimate state interest in it. In order to justify even marrying people the state had to come up with a reason why it even cared about people getting married; the reason that was decided on was procreation. (You can debate whether this should remain the interest, but the fact remains it is.)

In order to allow gay marriage you have to change the governments fundemental interest in marriage away from procreation. Once you do that you have opened the gate for and taken away the reasons against polygamous and incestuous marriages.

That isn't just a threat, it was stated point blank in an opinion written by Justice Scalia.

I am completely uninterested in anyone's sexual preferences. I don't care if your gay, I don't care if you are 'in love' with our sister or you have some kind of group love thing going on. But someone's unique sexual preferences shouldn't give them special status and certainly shouldn't be the basis of pulling the rug out from under a foundation of our society.

Try Try Again and Agin

Just keep putting this on the ballot until gay marriage is not banned. The evangelicals are going to get tired of spending their money on this. Especially since a lot of them are poor now.

Is blaming really helping the cause?

I'd imagine it's having the opposite effect. I can't imagine that anger and blame is swaying public opinion in our favor. I wonder how African American gay and straight allies feel about being blamed for something they didn't even support? I mean we are aware that they exist right? I hope we are also aware that this isn't a race issue, but a religous one. No one is voting against gay marriage intiatives because of their race. IIRC, South Africa is one of the few countries in the world to recognize gay marriage, so there goes that argument.

How are we so sure that the 70 percent figure is accurate to begin with? Are we supposed to believe it's true because it is what we were told? If the "samples sizes for Asians and blacks are too small to report separately" in the PPIC poll, who is to say this wouldn't have applied to the CNN exit poll which reportedly surveyed something like 224 African Americans? Just looking things over county by county I haven't seen anything so far which supports this 70 percent figure. I know votes are still being counted, but I do wonder if the 70 percent figure that everyone is going on about is even accurate. If it isn't, talk about foot in mouth.

education and hatred

A major theme in support of Proposition 8 is that it would be taught to young children. No matter what the age, Proposition 8 will already be taught to children. It is a moment in California politics and its aftermath becoming all the more in American politics as a whole. For decades beyond this election, and the decisions to come and/or elections thereafter, it will be a conversation on constitutional, social, separation of church and state issues and the list goes on. The best thing that came out of the passage of Proposition 8 is that it made it all the more a significant national issue and it is making many think about who, what and why is really behind the opposition of marriage equality.

One's religious views should not impose on the rights of others. You are allowed your beliefs at home, at church and in general practice, but not to the point where it imposes your views on others whom do not agree. You can pray for; you can damn to Hell, but it is not your place to impose alterations to a constitution based on a principle of a separation of beliefs.