Adventures of a Forced Migrant Contact Me
A new study by the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force finds that CNN exit polls overstated Black support for Prop 8.
Based on polling data funded by Equality California Institute and conducted by David Binder Research, the study found that voters who supported Prop 8 were primarily influenced by:
- Ideology – 82% of voters who identify as conservatives voted “Yes”
- Party – Republicans voted more than 80% in favor of Prop 8
- Religiosity – 70% of weekly church goers voted “Yes”
- Age – 67% of voters born before World War II voted “Yes”
The study also showed that race was not a driving factor in the election, as was purported by the National Election Pool (NEP) poll which said 70% of African-Americans voted for Prop 8. Our study found the number closer to 57% to 59%.
One of the most important–and rewarding–findings was the movement in all groups, except Republicans, toward support for full marriage equality. From 2000 to 2008 we moved Californians 9% in support of same-sex marriage – an amazing change in such a short time!
I am hoping this gets out more and helps to counter some of the gay-black divide that occured due to the CNN exit poll results showing that 70% of Blacks voted for Obama. Of course, there is alway work to be done in minority and poor communities to raise awareness about homophobia and why people are fighting for ‘marriage equality.’ But the reasons for opposing homosexuality have more to do with a complex intersection of categories (class, education, religious affiliation, emasculated and sexist culture) than mere ethnicity.
Here is another list put together through the help of Equality California that ranked these legislators on 5 LGBT legislations this past year. All of the following voted against 4 or all 5 bills. Now these legislative bills were not sweeping LGBT reforms.
Bottomline – Forget marriage equality. These (pre-dominantly old white men) bigots support discrimination against everything ranging from LGBT youth in foster care to LGBT elderly too.
Is your legislator on the list?
2008 SENATE BIGOTS
Sam Aanestad R 4
Dick Ackerman R 33
Roy Ashburn R 18
Jim Battin R 37
Dave Cogdill R 14
Dave Cox R 1
Jeff Denham R 12
Bob Dutton R 31
Tom Harman R 35
Dennis Hollingsworth R 36
Abel Maldonado R 15
Bob Margett R 29
Tom McClintock R 19
George Runner R 17
Mark Wyland R 38
2008 ASSEMBLY BIGOTS
Anthony Adams R 59
Greg Aghazarian R 26
Joel Anderson R 77
John Benoit R 64
Tom Berryhill R 25
Sam Blakeslee R 33
Paul Cook R 65
Chuck DeVore R 11
Michael Duvall R 72
Bill Emmerson R 63
Jean Fuller R 32
Ted Gaines R 4
Bonnie Garcia R 80
Martin Garrick R 74
Shirley Horton R 78
Guy Houston R 15
Bob Huff R 60
Kevin Jeffries R 66
Rick Keene R 3
Doug La Malfa R 2
Bill Maze R 34
Alan Nakanishi R 10
Roger Niello R 5
George Plescia R 75
Sharon Runner R 36
Jim Silva R 67
Cameron Smyth R 38
Todd Spitzer R 71
Audra Stickland R 37
Van Tran R 68
Mike Villines R 29
Mimi Walters R 73
To every person that is pro-gay marriage but bewildered and unsupportive of the uprising among LGBT people and allies, this paragraph by Dr. King is quite apt and to the point:
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Forget the moderate who wants to wait for laws to change. I am disappointed with the ‘liberal’ that believes in equal rights but votes to ban ‘gay marriage.‘ I am disgusted with the undocumented students around America who call for an end to discrimination against immigrants but post ‘Yes on H8’ videos. I am annoyed at so-called gay icons acting like ‘Uncle Toms’ of the gay community telling us not to ask for ‘marriage rights.’
Stop telling the LGBT community to ‘wait’ for change; stop telling us to not demand our civil rights. Playing ‘Mr. Nice Gay’ and ‘waiting’ has gotten us to this juncture where discrimination has been shamefully written into the California Constitution. As Dr. King wrote in the Letter from Birmingham Jail:
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!”… This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”
Now is not the time to ‘wait and watch.’
A loud cheer was heard in the LGBT community today when the California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits against Prop. 8.
The last time Justice George heard such a cheer from the LGBT community was when his court declared same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional on May 15, 2008.
“I think there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”
Justice George said it had been one of the most difficult cases of his life. Maybe he spoke prematurely as this one seems to much more crucial. Lets hope he does not play it safe — he is up for retention in 2010 and no doubt the Yes on 8 would launch a recall effort for this Republican-appointee and others who vote in favor of civil rights for LGBT couples.
[Advice for the premature recall effort: 6 of the 7 judges on the Court were appointed by Republicans, so recall away. We would get more liberal judges on the Court who would definitely be more pro-gay].
The Supreme Court has set an expedited schedule for the ruling that can be access here.
The Court is asking for briefs on the following questions:
(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?
(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what should happen to the same-sex marriages performed before Prop. 8 took effect?
Justice Moreno wanted an immediate stay on Prop 8 – He is the more liberal wing of the court and no prices for guessing which way he will vote. Justice Kennard wanted a separate motion filed for the right-wingers challenging the existing 18000 marriages and refused to sign on the motion.
I don’t know about (1), but (2) and (3) I can predict.
When the Supreme Court threw out the ban on gay marriage earlier in the year, the court also ruled that discrimination against gays and lesbians would be held under ‘strict scrutiny’ exactly like discrimination based on race or sex. Prop. 8 tells the Court in no unclear terms that the majority can decide what particular groups can be afforded ‘equal protection of the laws’ under the California Constitution and my pro-gay bias aside, I have LITTLE doubt that the Supreme Court will declare the measure as a gross violation of ‘separation of powers.’ GOODBYE PROP. 8
I doubt the Court will come to (3) but since the measure is not written as retroactive, it does not apply retroactively. Ex-post facto. The same-sex marriages performed would still be recognized by the state of California.
A new feature that fits my personality quite well.
(George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and other Dan-Quayle type personalities are thoroughly exempt or else they would be on this list every week)
The crown goes to Santa Clara University Professor Gerald Uelmen (a criminal lawyer by specialization) for standing in California Supreme Court justices and arguing that if the court overturned Prop 8, they should admit that outlawing same-sex marriage discrimination on May 15, 2008 was also an improper revision of the Constitution.
Even non-law school students would be able to tell Uelmen that the courts held discrimination based on “sexual orientation” to strict scrutiny standards and invalidated Prop. 22 on grounds that limiting marriage to a man and woman served no compelling straight state interest and furthermore, violated equal protection. How is that an ‘improper revision’ of the Constitution? It is a READING of the Constitution.
He also believed the week before the election that Prop 8 would nullify existing marriages contrary to what other state officials like Jerry Brown have repeatedly asserted: Prop 8 is NOT retroactive.
Justice Werdegar simply ignored the comment at the forum. Future Santa Clara law school standards ignore it at the risk of a substandard education if Professor Uelmen is a true representation of the faculty.
Close runner-up only because we have grown accustomed to hearing ridiculous things from the religious establishment.
Nominate your own!