Writes Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee:
Last week, however, 10 percent of voters were African American while 18 percent were Latino, and applying exit poll data to that extra turnout reveals that the pro-Obama surge among those two groups gave Proposition 8 an extra 500,000-plus votes, slightly more than the measure's margin of victory.Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California's black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.
To put it another way, had Obama not been so popular and had voter turnout been more traditional – meaning the proportion of white voters had been higher – chances are fairly strong that Proposition 8 would have failed.
Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.
Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.
At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.
The good news for supporters of marriage equity is that -- and there's no polite way to put this -- the older voters aren't going to be around for all that much longer, and they'll gradually be cycled out and replaced by younger voters who grew up in a more tolerant era. Everyone knew going in that Prop 8 was going to be a photo finish -- California might be just progressive enough and 2008 might be just soon enough for the voters to affirm marriage equity. Or, it might fall just short, which is what happened. But two or four or six or eight years from now, it will get across the finish line.
198 comments
But what are the chances of a countervailing constitutional amendment effort in 2010? 2012?
I fear that if it's left around too long, Prop 8 would become too entrenched to do much about.
Oh, and is this really the first comment?
This is exactly what I've been saying. Even though it failed now , it will pass soon
what is this story about bradley effect among gays?
http://zogbyinternational.blogspot.com/
But we like to blame the blacks and the hispanics, not the old people. Didn't you get the memo?
I didn't read all the way to the end, of course.....Here's to hoping for 2010.
My prediction is it will get repealed in no less the 4 years (and probably more like 6 or 8). Two years is too soon; in addition to "initiative fatigue" (CA voters do not like voting on the same thing over and over again) the pro gay marriage side won't have the built-in couple-point advantage of the NO side of the ballot next time.
I would also hope the pro equal rights side would work a bit on their strategy and outreach next time around...they did a very poor job with the campaign this year on many levels.
Let's hope so. Gay marriage being defeated by the voters of California, among other states, is a blow to the movement. Which states could actually pass gay marriage and survive a ballot proposition?
(I would hope for RI, but the legislature is far more conservative than the Democratic majorities let on, and we have an enormous Catholic population.)
The momentum to repeal is huge, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is up again no later than 2010.
As for these surveys - it was on this site among other places I learned to not rely too highly on exit polls overall, much less from smaller subsets. That the numbers on Prop 8 - both the yes/no vote and by small groups - have been taken as fact is really disconcerting. It flies in the face of what Nate has tried to instill if I have not misinterpreted things.
That Zogby blog Publius linked to has some interesting percentages of young people and older people's support for issues involving gay rights. As long as young voters continue to stay liberal on these issues , that's good news.
What people are forgetting is that Prop 8 was a response to our supreme court ruling that homosexuals are a suspect classification of people (which means discriminating against us is presumptively unconstitutional) and that the right to marry is a fundamental right.
We're going right back to the same court and asking them to hold that a bare majority of voters do not have the authority to strip a disfavored minority of fundamental rights. I've seen this described in the MSM as a "long shot" but as a law student deeply engaged with constitutional questions I find the current suits challenging prop 8 STRONGER than the initial challenge to the marriage ban over the summer.
We can look to putting the question back on the ballot in the coming summer, but the court represents the clearest path to rights parity.
It will be back on the ballot in 2010.
I agree with Nate... It's only a matter of time.
And I also agree that some of the scapegoating of minority voters has been awful in California, especially since it is driving wedges between constituencies that really need to be allies if we want to advance Civil Rights for everyone.
It's nice to see some sanity injected into that argument.
Thank you thank you for posting this. I've been deeply bothered by the idea that the Obama surge led to the paradoxical passage of Prop 8 -- it's good to know that idea is wrong. Unfortunately, it also appears to be the current conventional wisdom, so I hope people will pass Nate's reasoning along, & stop blaming the passage of Prop 8 on Hispanics & blacks.
FYI, I'm a white lesbian from Alaska, one of the first states to pass one of these "one man & one woman" constitutional amendment back in 1998.
If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.
Indeed, in 2000, Proposition 22 (which had very similar language) passed with 61% support.
It seems a bit silly to me to play the blame game on Proposition 8 on which subset of Democrats failed to support it. But Democratic leaders should take notice that a high percentage of African-American and Latino voters tend to be more conservative on social issues than their white liberal, Starbucks-drinking yuppie counterparts. I'm still convinced that the Democrats will lose overwhelmingly any national election that is decided on a divisive social issue.
So to Obama and the Democrats in Congress, please just focus the next four years on economic stabilization, energy policy, and healthcare. There's widespread support on those issues. In the meantime, appoint justices who will enact a progressive agenda. But tackling gay marriage head-on will only provide an opportunity for some idiot like Palin to take over in 2012.
As for Proposition 8, there's a better than 50/50 chance that the state supreme court will invalidate the measure on procedural grounds (a revision to the state constitution must first go through the legislature). What its passage suggests is that now isn't the time to press the issue, as popular sentiment is decidedly against gay marriage. If it can't pass in CA, then it's DOA in most of the country. And the federal courts (including the Supreme Court) are too conservative to extend 14th Amendment protection to gay marriage.
didn't FL pass an anti-gay marriage thing too? Why is everyone so obsessed with CA? I think we need a list of all the states with discriminatory rules, and let's see what can be done about all of them!
People are pissed and eventually this will go down through the courts. It is quite possible the State Supreme Court will invalidate the proposition, based upon a 40 year old precedent, which essentially says "you may not make something that is a fundamental constitutional right unconstitutional." The U. S. Constitution states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Also, the California proposition process for changing the state constitution, only a 50%+1 simple majority, is not supposed to be used for matters of person rights. Instead it would have to be thrown to the legislature for a 2/3 vote passage.
The U.S. Supreme Court is not likely to hear an appeal because this has been made into a state matter. I don't think the U.S. Supreme Court will want to open that can of worms at this time.
Nate Silver you rock (STUD) -- Thanks for posting this because I believe that the minorities are getting a bum rap.
Ciao from Europe.
John said...
We're going right back to the same court and asking them to hold that a bare majority of voters do not have the authority to strip a disfavored minority of fundamental rights. I've seen this described in the MSM as a "long shot" but as a law student deeply engaged with constitutional questions I find the current suits challenging prop 8 STRONGER than the initial challenge to the marriage ban over the summer.
I agree with John. From my limited legal understanding, it would appear that the current challenges to this "amendment" have reasonably strong standing. Prop 8 sets a very dangerous precedent -- allowing the voters to strip a minority group of existing rights by majority vote. The Constitution and the Supreme Court are designed to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" from imposing unfairly on minority groups.
And based on my reading of the California court's original ruling, I think one or more of these cases will get a good and reasonable hearing from them, even if they are majority Republican.
WV: elsque - the alternative queue
My parents (who would vote YES) will be dead soon and my daughter's vote (that would be NO) will replace it.
This will be a non-issue in 30 years.
the reason nobody talks about the florida or arizona ones is because they already had statuory DOMAs
Mrs. B:
didn't FL pass an anti-gay marriage thing too? Why is everyone so obsessed with CA?
California is the only state that has passed such a proposition/amendment to take away the right to marry after it was granted. Florida's amendment, like the many others that have passed, was preemptive. That's why there's so much focus on California.
Two points on above:
The overwhelming consensus of legal scholars is that the CA SC will NOT overrule Prop 8. It's a complicated issue, but the idea that there is better than a 50/50 chance of this happening is not supported anywhere I have read (and I am someone who before the vote had heard otherwise, but not since).
The Florida vote in some ways is worse - my understanding is that now that the amendment passed (needing 60% vote for approval), it would need 60% to overturn it.
I'm glad that the older, Folgers-drinking conservatives are eventually going to be replaced by younger liberals, who prefer frothed or steamed milk with their overpriced coffee.
Thank you for posting this. The press has placed too much emphasis on this 'irony' narrative, which has distracted from the, well, outlandish lies from the Y/8 folks, which really did us in.
Updated results: Obama now leads by 8.3 million votes. His percentage lead has increased to 6.6%.
Not an expert... BUT...
If a court rules that a right extends to all citizens, it's unlikely to change its mind just because the population disagrees.
After all, the legal arguments in favor gay marriage are unchanged by a vote of the people.
The lawsuit to overturn Prop 8 will win.
Mel, if you believe the exit polls, what's irrefutable is that minority voters *did* cause Prop 8 to pass. Simply put, the majority of minorities voted for it, and the majority of whites voted against it.
All Nate's saying here is that it wasn't all the new Obama voters that passed Prop 8.
The Florida vote in some ways is worse - my understanding is that now that the amendment passed (needing 60% vote for approval), it would need 60% to overturn it.
A lot of the preemptive measures in other states are worse. The one in Virginia from '06 explicitly outlaws gay marriage, civil unions, and basically any contract that confers any of the rights of marriage. (Whether it makes domestic partner benefits illegal hasn't yet been tested in court.) And Virginia would require the legislature to pass an amendment for two sessions in a row and then a majority vote on the ballot to overturn it, which ain't happening in the next 10-20 years.
I think most of these will stay on the books until there's enough critical mass that the Supreme Court outlaws the lot of them, like the bans on interracial marriage, which is pretty shameful.
GlennNYC, hate to say it to a New Yorker, but New Jersey will probably beat NY to marriage -- there's a pretty broad consensus in NJ for marriage now, but in NY, the Democrats' hold on the Senate is by a thread, and a few of those Dems are very conservative socially. Not saying it won't happen, but it is not close to a sure thing.
Agree with the analysis, but it's important to recognize that it's going to be a lot harder to repeal constitutional amendments like this than simply waiting a few years. There is a world of difference for a lot of people between voting against a constitutional ban on gay marriage and voting affirmatively for allowing gay marriages. You are simply not going to find half the population of California going out to the polling place and saying, yes, please, bring us gay marriages. Not inside a decade, at least. This is not just because of the substantive question, which I agree is trending in gay marriage's favor, albeit too slowly. For a lot of people, voting "no" on referenda is the default position; thus, no stances have a structural advantage that will also now have to be overcome.
Further, many states require supermajorities for constitutional amendments, an additional hurdle. A lot of people seem pretty sanguine about the whole thing, but putting these things in state constitutions is incredibly more damaging than DOMAs ever were.
If gay marriage isn't affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, it will be at least 30 years before it's legal in even half the states. I think that's an optimistic view.
We're going right back to the same court and asking them to hold that a bare majority of voters do not have the authority to strip a disfavored minority of fundamental rights. I've seen this described in the MSM as a "long shot" but as a law student deeply engaged with constitutional questions I find the current suits challenging prop 8 STRONGER than the initial challenge to the marriage ban over the summer.
Proposition 8 was an amendment to the California state constitution. As such, it cannot be overturned on its merits by the state supreme court (anymore than the SCOTUS could say the 26th Amendment was unconstitutional). If the state supreme court holds it as unconstitutional, it will have to do so on the grounds the it violates the US Constitution (most likely the 14th Amendment), in which case the decision will most likely be reviewed by the US Supreme Court. There, four justices (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas) are almost certain to not to be receptive to extending the 14th Amendment, while the swing vote (Kennedy) is probably more likely to side with the conservatives than the liberals on this issue.
The best chance for the state supreme court rejecting Proposition 8 is on procedural grounds, not on its actual merits. And that's actually the lawsuit currently before it. If they decide that the proposition had to first be endorsed by the legislature before appearing on the ballot, then Proposition 8 is thrown out on the technicality WITHOUT a ruling on its merits. The US Supreme Court would also be unlikely to review the case if rejected on procedural grounds, unless there was clear due process violation.
And if the state supreme court rejects Proposition 8 on procedural grounds, its proponents would then have to get the state legislature to endorse it and then re-submit it to popular referendum at a future election. Given the current makeup of the California Assembly and Senate, that's highly unlikely.
I've always believed that most of our 'isms' are generational including this most recent presidential election. It takes the death of a generation to move on to new ideals. The one barrier to that: religion.
Nate,
As usual, your analysis is awesome, but it seems on this post that you're missing some key data. Why exactly do you think that African Americans split 50/50 on the measure? I'm a regular reader of Andrew Sullivan, and he has a theory that African Americans are less likely to support homosexual rights than any other group. See this Survey USA Poll from October 20, which shows a 20-point gap between African Americans who support Prop 8 vs. those who opposed it: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=0d4fd538-5834-4c18-98c8-6e58da254976
Also note that the poll there assumes that African Americans would make up 6 percent of likely voters. If they ended up at 10 percent, then it could help explain why Prop 8 passed.
Thanks for this post! Very interesting.
I think that we still have some room for inroads with people who do not have a firm religious stance against us, would even be OK with civil unions, but still don't think we should get to call ourselves "married."
There has to be a way to get them to see that the only reason to deny marriage and allow civil unions is to say, "You are just not as good as us." No other explanation for that position.
Off topic:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/91543F3D63AAB73D862574FE00158BC5?OpenDocument
Missouri is still up in the air. Obama has cut into his lead by 1000 in the last week with 7000 provisional ballots in blue areas remaining. And county election officials have recovered almost 3,200 additional votes in the last few days. McCain leads by less than 5,000 now. Maybe be 2-3 weeks before a final count is official.
WALT
You're wrong on the law. The CSC does have the authority to invalidate propositions approved by the voters even if they purport to alter the constitution. They don't need to turn to federal law. Of course the revision argument is strong, but the substantive argument is at least equally strong. Further, the build on each other.
By the way, the SCOTUS could rule that the 26th Amendment is unconstitutional. That's the definition of supreme, they're not final because they are right, they're right because they're final.
walt526:
What its passage suggests is that now isn't the time to press the issue, as popular sentiment is decidedly against gay marriage.
Funny thing -- the conventional wisdom throughout this entire process is to be patient, this isn't the time to press the issue. And yet the whole debate has shifted, largely because advocates did press the issue, and a lot of the more passive voters in opposition were forced to confront the fact that the world didn't end when gay people started getting married, and in fact it hardly made any difference at all.
This has nothing to do with Democrats in Congress; that's a red herring. And with regard to minority voters, you seem to be ignoring Nate's generational analysis, which suggests that advocates' effort would be better spent cultivating younger voters and educating older ones, rather than declaring that "those people" are socially conservative and giving up.
Furthermore, your entire argument is of a piece with the old 90's conventional wisdom that voters are conservative, so we should be careful not to stir them up against us. The past four years have demonstrated that we do much better when we're true to our convictions rather than pandering or playing it safe, and that most voters aren't single-issue and will respect you more if you honestly disagree with them than if you try to be all things to all people.
This is a principled fight, and we are on the right side of history. We have to be careful how we pursue it, but sitting back and waiting will gain us nothing.
I need to reiterate this comment:
"I agree with Nate... It's only a matter of time.
And I also agree that some of the scapegoating of minority voters has been awful in California, especially since it is driving wedges between constituencies that really need to be allies if we want to advance Civil Rights for everyone."
I am and always have been 100% behind both marriage equality and Barack Obama. It's easy for me to say as a straight person, but people please lets stop blaming clumps of people like minorities for this. We need to stick together for our common goals -- civil rights for everyone! Yes, I'm very disappointed that a lot of black people have socially conservative values but lets avoid blaming, scapegoating, and resorting to downright nasty behavior. Lets focus on what we can do to change things for the better in the future.
At first I was inclined to be annoyed about the exit polls from blacks. I hope that some of the ones who voted against gay marriage there see the results of the affirmative action votes in Colorado and Nebraska and reconsider whether minority's rights or programs to help them should be put to popular vote.
But as I looked the real culprits emerged - age and religion. *90%* of the non-religious voted against Prop 8 in California. The numbers in Arizona and Florida were not as high, but still significantly higher than the rest of the vote in those areas. In California, the non-religious voted 50 pts higher in favor of gay rights (90% against prop 8 compared to 40% for the rest of the population), while in Arizona it was 29 pts higher (69 vs 40), and Florida it was 30 pts higher (65 vs 35). Jews also were significantly more gay friendly. The data from the exit polls I was looking at wasn't enough to compare races within religion, but I suspect a large portion of the difference between the white and the black vote was due to blacks being more religious than whites (and the fact that almost all Jews are white). The reason that's relevant is because it affects whether the problem is that gay rights organizations have a problem convincing black people specifically, or if they only have a problem with conservative Christians.
I'd be pretty interested in getting information about other religious groups too.
But as mentioned, age was a strong factor as well. I'd be interested to know the data about age and religion - whether the younger generation is less religious, for example, or if they're just as religious but more accepting of LGBT rights.
Banning gay marriage is the legitimate will of the people of California. Can't you people see that? You're just going to keep suing till you find a sympathetic judge who will overturn it. Twice the people of California have banned gay marriage and yet you have the nerve to babble on about 60% and whether it's an amendment or a revision. The majority of the people of California want gay marriage banned. Why can't that be enough for you guys who supposedly are the party of the people?
I think most of these will stay on the books until there's enough critical mass that the Supreme Court outlaws the lot of them, like the bans on interracial marriage, which is pretty shameful.
Right now, we're only a vote or two away. Here's the current makeup of the Court (age in parenthesis):
Roberts (53): conservative
Alito (58): conservative
Scalia (72): conservative
Thomas (60): conservative
Kennedy (72): moderate
Breyer (70): liberal
Ginsburg (75): liberal
Souter (69): liberal
Stevens (88): liberal
Conventional wisdom is that within his first term, Obama is likely to appoint at least two new justices (replacements for Ginsburg and Stevens). Souter is also rumored to be considering early retirement. For this reason alone, a GOP victory in 2008 would have been devastating to progressives as it would have allowed the Court to shift decisively conservative for the next several decades (given the relative youth of Roberts, Alito, and Thomas).
Now while all the justices most likely to retire are the "liberal," if Scalia or Kennedy were to be replaced, the makeup of the Court would shift back to liberal-leaning. In other words, we're only one justice away, even if Roberts presides over it for the next 20 years. At the very least, Obama should be able to guarantee that the Court continues with a 4-1-4 makeup.
Brook:
Also note that the poll there assumes that African Americans would make up 6 percent of likely voters. If they ended up at 10 percent, then it could help explain why Prop 8 passed.
African Americans were 10 percent in the widely-cited CNN exit poll, not of overall turnout. This is one of the red flags that the poll isn't very representative. (Not a surprise to those of us who read Nate's pre-election post about exit polls.)
Think about it -- for AA's to be six percent of the population but ten percent of the vote, their turnout would have had to be more than one and a half times the level of everyone else.
Anthony Kennedy has always been considered a reliably conservative Justice. He only looks "moderate" compared to the four radical rightists Justices. He seems in the last couple years to be assuming the Sandra Day O'Connor role as swing vote after being reliably conservative.
I wonder if Obama picks some moderate liberals to the bench who he finds some common ground with could Kennedy decide to retire to remove the chance that he is replaced by another radical Scalia clone?
Nate, there is a statistical analysis on this very question over on Kos, which you should enjoy since it is number and data-rich. It debunks in all mathematical glory the idea that Black voters got Prop 8 approved. I am not equipped to analyze that post, but you are. I hope it correct.
See: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/7/34645/1235
Banning gay marriage is the legitimate will of the people of California. Can't you people see that? You're just going to keep suing till you find a sympathetic judge who will overturn it. Twice the people of California have banned gay marriage and yet you have the nerve to babble on about 60% and whether it's an amendment or a revision. The majority of the people of California want gay marriage banned. Why can't that be enough for you guys who supposedly are the party of the people?
Because in this country we don't think fundamental rights should be left to a plebicite.
JAMES
The problem is that prop 8 is the illegitimate will of the people. It doesn't comport with longstanding constitutional doctrine. The constitution stands between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority. We're not looking for "a" sympathetic judge, we're looking for FOUR fairness minded judges that see this expression of the will of the people for exactly what it is: invidious discrimination. Being of the people doesn't mean siding with the majority BECAUSE they're are the majority. It means doing what is right for ALL the people.
James,
Maintining segregation and Jim Crow is the legitimate will of the people of the South. Can't you people see that? You're just going to keep suing till you find a sympathetic federal judge who will overturn it. Over and over, the people of South have voted to uphold segregation and Jim Crow yet you have the nerve to babble on about 60% and whether it's an amendment or a revision. The majority of the people of the South want segregation and Jim Crow to continue. Why can't that be enough for you guys who supposedly are the party of the people?
You're wrong on the law. The CSC does have the authority to invalidate propositions approved by the voters even if they purport to alter the constitution. They don't need to turn to federal law. Of course the revision argument is strong, but the substantive argument is at least equally strong. Further, the build on each other.
No, that's simply not correct. Some state supreme courts may be able to override a state constitutional amendment as itself being unconstitutional, but not California's.
And I don't see how the procedural claim reinforces the constitutional claim. They are two distinct and independent grounds on which to challenge the law, but there's no synergy between them.
By the way, the SCOTUS could rule that the 26th Amendment is unconstitutional. That's the definition of supreme, they're not final because they are right, they're right because they're final.
That's not correct. There are checks on the Supreme Court, one of which is a constitutional amendment. The Court can interpret the Constitution (including it's amendments), but it cannot rule on the constitutionality of the part of the constitution itself (as an amendment essentially is). For example, in the 1920s the Court refused to hear a case challenging the 18th Amendment as an unconstitutional regulation of commerce. It took a separate amendment (the 21st) to overturn the 18th.
Kennyb,
Don't be stupid. No one is looking for any judges or to get Jim Crow reinstated. I'm sure, unfortunately, that there are many people who would like it that way. The fact is that no matter how many times the people of California make it known that their will is to ban gay marriage, you will keep suing until it goes your way. In a democracy, majority rules.
I've posted this story on digg. It's an important one to help stem some of the hurtful, counterproductive rhetoric of blame going around. If you share my sentiments, please go digg it up:
http://digg.com/politics/Nate_Silver_debunks_Prop_8_myths
The problem is in Florida, where it will now be necessary to convince 60% of voters to repeal the marriage ban. That won't happen for decades, probably.
A real question. How do the arguments supporting gay marriage not also support multiple spouses at the same time?
While it is true that generational changes may at some point make it possible to pass a popular vote affirmation of marriage equality; it doesn't change the absolute repugnant nature of putting any individual's or group's civil rights up to a popular vote. This is supposedly why we have the system of respect for minority rights - to prevent a tyranny of the majority.
Makes me feel a little better. Thanks Nate :)
Something I don't see being mentioned (unless I missed it) is that the Yes on 8 people used some tactics that were misleading, and in some cases outright lies.
In the days leading up to the elections we received several calls from the Yes on 8 campaign telling us that Obama is for prop 8 and that prop 8 would require that gay marriage be taught in schools. I can very easily picture a situation where undecided voters who already have decided on voting for Obama would go to the polls and vote Yes, thinking they were supporting Obama.
"Banning gay marriage is the legitimate will of the people of California. Can't you people see that? You're just going to keep suing till you find a sympathetic judge who will overturn it. Twice the people of California have banned gay marriage and yet you have the nerve to babble on about 60% and whether it's an amendment or a revision. The majority of the people of California want gay marriage banned. Why can't that be enough for you guys who supposedly are the party of the people?"
You are literally arguing against the idea of a constitution.
You create a constitution to constrain the rest of your government. You create a constitution to constrain what the legislature may do and what judges may do and what the executive branch may do, and you create it to constrain what may be done on a given day by majority vote, including "the 51 percent of us don't want the 49 percent of you to have equal rights, so shut up and sit down."
The fact that there are actually people who do not understand the supremacy of constitutional rights over majority whims is positively terrifying. People have constitutional rights EVEN IF the majority would like to deny them. People have constitutional rights EVEN THOUGH the majority does not, at a given moment in time, feel like granting them.
I mean, this is not advanced stuff. This is the Federalist Papers. This is how you protect minorities from majorities. The inability of the majority to make the minority shut up and agree to have only the rights 51 percent of the population feel like giving them on a given day is a FEATURE, not a BUG, in the constitution.
So we've stopped marriage for gay people, but why stop there?
Let's ban marriage for black people, non-Christian people... in fact anyone we can get a majority of people to vote on to get it to pass. Hey, it'll be the "will of the majority"!
Who's with me?
James:
"Don't be stupid. No one is looking for any judges or to get Jim Crow reinstated. I'm sure, unfortunately, that there are many people who would like it that way."
"Unfortunately"! I agree with you! Because minorities have fundamental rights that can't be abrogated by the majority?"
"The fact is that no matter how many times the people of California make it known that their will is to ban gay marriage, you will keep suing until it goes your way. In a democracy, majority rules."
Oh.
"A real question. How do the arguments supporting gay marriage not also support multiple spouses at the same time?"
It's a logical fallacy to assume that because you oppose one limitation on marriage, you must oppose them all.
When inter-racial marriages were legalized, we did not suddenly become a polygamous society. There's no reason to assume we would or should if marriage were allowed between same sex couples.
Banning gay marriage is the legitimate will of the people of California. Can't you people see that? You're just going to keep suing till you find a sympathetic judge who will overturn it. Twice the people of California have banned gay marriage and yet you have the nerve to babble on about 60% and whether it's an amendment or a revision. The majority of the people of California want gay marriage banned. Why can't that be enough for you guys who supposedly are the party of the people?
First, a simple fact correction: the "60% threshold" discussion pertains to Florida's gay marriage ban, not California's.
Second, there has been a long established role for the judiciary to protect the rights of an minority group from the will of an unsympathetic majority--what de Tocqueville called the "tyranny of the majority." Although really de Tocqueville was just expounding upon the ideas presented by Madison in Federalist Number 10.
The basic idea is that popular will is not always sufficient to guarantee a fair and equitable outcome, particularly when it involves a politically powerless minority. To guard against popular disenfranchisement, Madison articulated a role for an independent judiciary that would mediate between core constitutional rights and legislative actions.
The fact is that no matter how many times the people of California make it known that their will is to ban gay marriage, you will keep suing until it goes your way. In a democracy, majority rules.
Except that we don't have a democracy. We have a republic, as provided for in the Constitution. In a republic, majority will cannot override rights retained by a minority.
The will of the people was established when the Constitution was ratified. Any subsequent alteration to that established will has to go through proper procedure--an amendment to the U.S. Constitution--in order to be legally valid.
Look up the history of Prohibition to see how this works.
It's outrageous that black people are allowed to marry. They never were before.
"Everyone knew going in that Prop 8 was going to be a photo finish -- California might be just progressive enough and 2008 might be just soon enough for the voters to affirm marriage equity. Or, it might fall just short, which is what happened. But two or four or six or eight years from now, it will get across the finish line."
I'm happy to be proven wrong on this -- I voted no on Prop 8 -- but it is my understanding that even though it takes only 50% + 1 to amend the California Constitution*, it will take a 2/3rds majority in the California Legislature plus a popular majority vote to overturn Prop 8.
Because of that, it will be much longer than 4 or 8 more years. If the social conservatives control just 34% of the seats in one house, they can stop a revision.
* The battle in the courts in the coming months is whether Prop 8 "revised" or "amended" the Constitution. If it is found to be a "revision," then it will not hold up, because a revision must eminate from the legislature by a 2/3rds vote. If 8 is determined to just be an amendment, it will hold up. Yet, and this is where it gets weird if my understanding is right, once an amendment is put in place by a majority of voters, that amendment cannot be touched by another amendment. It must be revised. (I should say I have no source for this. I heard it on KGO radio.)
"A real question. How do the arguments supporting gay marriage not also support multiple spouses at the same time?"
Because there are not people who are only able to be in a romantic relationship with multiple partners, but there are people who are only able to be in a romantic relationship with a partner of the same sex.
er sorry I meant gays not blacks. apologies.
RWD - "It's a logical fallacy to assume that because you oppose one limitation on marriage, you must oppose them all."
I'm not saying whether it will happen. Or even whether it should. But, don't many of the arguments to allow gay marriage also logically allow polygamy?
Thanks for this work, Nate. I'd been disturbed by how frequently I'd heard loud discussions in public places in East Bay, CA blaming "blacks and Hispanics" and "the Obama turnout" for the passage of Prop 8. It's a shame we're so quick to turn on one another, especially when all this talk seemed vaguely fishy. Generational prejudice we can deal with, because it passes in time.
This is my first post, but, in another note, I wanted to say that I intend to keep checking back regularly even now that the election is over! I appreciate your consistently insightful commentary and your insistence at probing the data at hand. I saw your comment in the NYT that the irony of this election cycle is that we're all about change but won't be so tuned in to the actual work of politics now that the election's passed. Well, I for one will be tuned in for your bill-passage-predictions!
dale, exactly, if we allow gays to marry, it will only be a matter of days before we allow child weddings, people to marry animals etc. etc.
just like when we allowed balcks to marry...
oh wait, nothing happened.
In the days leading up to the elections we received several calls from the Yes on 8 campaign telling us that Obama is for prop 8 and that prop 8 would require that gay marriage be taught in schools. I can very easily picture a situation where undecided voters who already have decided on voting for Obama would go to the polls and vote Yes, thinking they were supporting Obama.
Well Obama's stated position is to support civil unions for homosexual partners (with equal rights to marriage) while leaving "marriage" to be defined by the states. In other words, pretty much Dick Cheney's position. Obama went out of his way to not stake out a position one way or another on Proposition 8 (one of the reasons why we didn't see him out here much, even for fund raising).
Depending on how the robocall was worded, it would have been possible to make the voter think that Obama was against the proposition without resorting to an outright lie.
"don't many of the arguments to allow gay marriage also logically allow polygamy?"
not if you consider marriage to be a contract between one person and another person. see, all we did was change "one man and one woman" to "one person and another person". This allows gay marriage but excludes polygamous marriage.
The arguments for or against polygamy are completely separate.
I don't blame any particular group of voters. I blame carpetbagging Mormons with way too much money.
Dale: A real question. How do the arguments supporting gay marriage not also support multiple spouses at the same time?
Me: Because gender and number aren't the same thing? What are your arguments against polygamy? Unless your entire argument is a fallacious appeal to tradition, I rather suspect that your arguments against polygamy will have little relation to your arguments against gay marriage.
I'll admit that some of the arguments in favor of gay marriage have some similarity to arguments for polygamy (appeals to love and such) but the main crux of the argument is debunking the arguments *against* gay marriage. And since the arguments against gay marriage aren't the same as the arguments against polygamy, you can't just apply them to polygamy.
But even so, your entire premise here begs the question of whether polygamy is so obviously wrong in the first place. If you can't support that premise, it's probably an unwise angle of attack for you.
wv: syngl - uncoupled wymyn are syngl
Let me see if I have this right:
The people of California, not the legislature, have the right to amed the constitution with a simple majority vote? And legislators, in turn, have to override their wishes with a 2/3 vote?
That seems way out of whack to me. Somebody show me I'm wrong.
Nate's the first I've seen to point out that generational status is a stronger predictor than race/ethnicity on the issue of gay marriage (and likely gay rights in general). Although the result was disheartening, we should not overreact. Time and education will tell. I hope progressives in California will begin immediately planning for how/when they will win a popular vote on this issue.
BTW, I'm from Massachusetts, and while the anti-gay crowd (well, not really a crowd, sort of a small group, really) likes to whine about how they didn't reach the ballot, I'm confident that if gay marriage was a ballot issue here, we'd support those rights by a large margin.
"I blame carpetbagging Mormons with way too much money."
The money question aside, Mormon voters in California were a very small group. Even if they voted 9-1 in favor of 8, their yes votes were overwhelmed by black and Latino yes votes.
I'm not saying whether it will happen. Or even whether it should. But, don't many of the arguments to allow gay marriage also logically allow polygamy?
No. Because being a polygamist isn't the same thing as being gay. The former is a choice, the latter is not.
The reason the equal protection clause is cited in these cases is because marriage rights are being denied to gays as a group. Because gays cannot have a valid marriage with an opposite-sex partner, the right of marriage (established in Loving v. Virginia) is categorically denied to them.
Also, since I'm sure we're going to get to this point eventually:
Civil marriage and holy matrimony are not the same thing. Same-sex couples want the former, not the latter. Churches are and always will be free to choose whom they wish to marry. Legalizing divorce didn't force the Catholic church to start marrying divorcees.
Churches are free to define holy matrimony however they wish. The state, however, is not bound by religion to define their domestic contract of civil marriage the same way.
Nate, I disagree. Dan's argument is:
1) His definition of surge is not just first time voters but instead first time and occasional voters.
2) The African American voter turnout is normally 6-7%.
3) In this election it was 10%. Obviously AA turnout was heavy in order to skew the statistics like this.
4) African Americans voted heavily in favor of Prop 8, 70-30. He's assuming that this holds true for first time and occasional AAs.
5) If you scale the results by the usual turnout demographics, then Prop 8 loses.
The exit polls you use to contradict him are for first time voters only. They don't capture occasional voters.
I'd add that the surge was both pro-Obama and anti-Obama. Let's take it as a simplifying assumption that an anti-Obama vote is pro Prop 8. Add to that the increased AA and Latino turnout and you have Prop 8 passing.
I'm not saying whether it will happen. Or even whether it should. But, don't many of the arguments to allow gay marriage also logically allow polygamy?
Well the difference is that marriage laws only allow one person to be married to another at any one time because special rights are given to a spouse.
For example, when I die, then my estate transfers to my wife without "the death tax." To the extent that the state has an interest in not allowing me to circumvent the estate tax, it can limit me to one spouse and can impose reasonable limitations on who I can marry. For instance, I could not marry my daughter simply to preserve more of the family estate for her. So even if the state didn't have an interest in discouraging incest (eg, propensity for offspring having birth defects), there are grounds for them limiting the scope of females that a male can marry so as to exclude a parent-child marriage.
The estate tax is just one example, but I'm sure that you could come up with any number of examples that provide the state with an interest in limiting spouses to one--and only one--nonrelative at a time. The question then becomes is there something inherently different from a single, unrelated male and a single, unrelated female that provides the state with a compelling interest to discriminate between hetero- and homosexual partners.
So to answer your question, I think that there are clearly state interests against polygamy that do not exist when considering gay marriage.
The question is then whether those state interests are compelling enough to override the polygamist's first amendment right to free religion. But that's a wholly separate debate, IMHO.
Shawna - "a choice" -to love only one person- interesting.
I have not said I am against (or for) same sex marriage or polygamy. But trying to look at issues like these in a logical, dispassionate manner, like the judiciary and legislatures should, is very difficult for all.
Dale said...
A real question. How do the arguments supporting gay marriage not also support multiple spouses at the same time?
Because heterosexual couples don't have the right to marry multiple spouses. They're not asking for something over and above what heterosexuals have, they're asking for the same thing. Separate is not equal. This is a civil rights issue. A portion of our citizens are not being given the same rights as the rest of our citizens. And that is clearly wrong. It goes against everything America stands for.
Interesting take on all this. Mark Wilson had a good piece on prop 8 here:
Proposition
8: It Wasn't All Smiles
WALT
The prodecudural claim is that prop 8 revises the constitution, i.e. it has broad effects that go beyond the words of the prop itself. The substantive claim is that prop 8 is violative of longstanding equal protection jurisprudence among other well established principles. That's how they build on each other and both are being taken to the court.
Apparently we have a disagreement about whether the CSC can invalidate a proposition that amends the constitution after it has passed. I fully understand your contention but I'm pointing out that it is merely that - your contention. The court will either agree or disagree with you and that will resolve the substantive question.
MY contention is that the history, spirit and letter of CA constitutional law are in direct conflict with prop 8 and that one must yield to the other. The only body who can make that determination is the CSC and you don't believe they have the authority to settle that dispute. I do. If they agree with me, it's unreviewable.
James -
Someone missed their 7th grade Civics lesson.
Fundamental rights of minorities are SUPPOSED to be beyond the whim of the majority to abrogate.
As an example: well more than half the state is NOT Republican. Should we amend the Constitution to disallow Republican involvement in CA state government?
Just because a scant majority are willing to go along with a thing does not make it a good idea. This is why Constitutions exist, and why MOST reasonable state require a super-majority to effect radical changes to the Constitution (CA does as well, but "redical changes" is ill-defined, hence the current judicial review of the prop).
Even if AA pro-8 sentiment wasn't enough to turn the tide, it's not out of line to identify AA voters as troublesome to eight passing. What if AA's voted the same as other Democrats on 8? What would the results have been then?
80% of white Democrats voted against 8, whereas 70% of AA's voted for it. I think measuring AA votes for 8 against the Democratic vote is the more appropriate model. There's no measure for older Democrats, but my guess is they would have passed eight also.
How can the story of this election not be the massive discrepancy between black and white Democrats on this issue? That's a 50 point difference in the same party! Name another issue that comes close to that kind of difference.
Dan Walters of the Sacremento Bee is simply wrong, EVEN IF WE USE HIS OWN (INCORRECT) ASSUMPTIONS.
According to the 2004 CNN exit polls, the California electorate broke down as follows:
White 65
Black 6
Latino 21
Asian 4
Other 4
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/CA/P/00/epolls.0.html
According to the 2008 CNN exit poll, the yes-no vote for each of these demographic groups was as follows:
White 49-51
Black 70-30
Latino 53-47
Asian 49-51
Other 51-49
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/
Assuming the 2008 electorate mirrored the 2004 electorate, I get the following "yes" vote share for each group (i.e. multiplying the 2004 percent of the elctorate for each group by its 2008 "yes" vote):
White 31.85%
Black 4.20%
Latino 11.13%
Asian 2.94%
Other 1.53%
This totals 51.65%. Thus, if the 2008 electorate were exactly the same as the 2004 electorate, racially speaking, then Prop 8 would still have passed.
so McCain is going to campaign for Chambliss in Georgia. Just when I thought McCain couldn't sink any lower, he does.
I hope that Obama will be against any similar legislature or whatever that wants to legalize gay marriage. He is on record as being for civil unions with all the rights but against marriage. Marriage is a religious thing and needs to stay that way. I don't understand why gays are not happy with just having a civil union law that let's them have all the rights that heteros have. When you try to mess with people's religion they tend to get nasty, and most gays I thought were pretty atheist if I am not mistaken anyway.
I'm a devout Baptist in a very red state who honestly believes homosexuality is wrong.
*HOWEVER*, I think marriage should be ALLOWED between any two people (any combination). I'm am trying to understand how one would not also think it ok to allow multiple spouses.
About the original topic, exit polling data is already suspect, but the most important issue with folks on both sides of the issue whould be why the measure failed/succeeded so they know where to direct their resources next time.
The dirty little secret of the election year is the hostility that African Americans harbor towards Gays.
Nate's point about the generational character is beside the point, as it is true of the larger population as well, which opposed Prop 8 by far smaller margins than did African Americans.
It is a "dirty little secret" because you would think that oppressed peoples would stick together and make common cause for equality. Much the way the Jews did for the "Negro" people of the 50s and 60s.
That African American leadership has given the Jews the back of its hand hardly needs to be chronicled. But let us not forget Jesse Jackson and "Hymie Town" and Minister Farrakhan and "gutter religion". Just as with the Holocaust we must never forget. Forgive maybe, but never forget.
It struck me that there was a remarkable lack of attention paid in this campaign over one Democrat interest group: the Gays. They hardly got a mention in the candidates’ speeches, Obama finally giving them some lip service in his victory speech on Election Night and Hillary mentioning them in her quasi-concession speech at the end of the primaries.
It is an attitude that bears watching in Obama. I think he is man who lacks a soul, empathy rooted in a fundamental love of humanity in all of its imperfectness. The imperfectness that God has created for us.
Just as Obama can blithely go about his business while his relatives face privation and deportation, he can ignore the plight of Gay Americans because it does not suit his political calculus, or perhaps he has something to hide. Whatever.
To me the Love of God transcends all and requires us to embrace the entirety of His messy human creation. I may not believe in Gay "marriage" or wish to place homosexual couplings on a footing with traditional unions, but I wish no one ill and sympathize with folks' sense of frustration, rage even, in not being treated fairly or being discriminated against. I respect their aspirations and am honest enough to know I would want the same for myself, should I too fall outside of society’s definition of a “protected class.”
It will be interesting to watch how Obama deals with this interest group over the next four years.
And let us, while we do so, keep a happy thought for his Aunt Zeituni as well!
docbenny- wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Marriage is both a religious and a legal structure. They are not analalogous. Atheists and agnostics can have only a legal marriage if they so choose. The arguements center on the legal construct (which allows much more divorce than many religions).
Also, some denominations and religious groups (Unitarian Universalists for example), recognize a religious marriage for gay couples. If you were to say that legal marriage must be the same as religious marriage and than exclude Unitarian marriages because some of them are gay that would be establishment of the denominations and religious discrimination.
Gay marriage is civil unions with all the legal rights, using the same legal forms for the same legal rights instead of a parrallel unneccessary seperate form.
I said this in another thread about this topic, and it is what I think...
The way to correctly fight this battle at this point in time is to change the definition of all marriages to civil unions. And pass the language that a civil union is made between two people and that union would allow them to have all the rights experienced by married people now. The key though is that this needs to change the definition of traditional "married" couples to couples that are part of a civil union.
In doing so, the religious people can keep their little marriage term and whatnot, but the trick is that marriage itself means *nothing* legally for anyone.
It also needs to be written so that it isn't a homosexual thing, or a "love" thing, or a "reproduction" thing or any other garbage like that. Everyone needs to be classified as having a civil union, and you can have one. If I wanted to, maybe late in life I was really good friends with another guy and my wife passed away. Even if we aren't attracted to one another, perhaps a civil union between us where we could share some financial stuff would be in our best interests.
In such a way, the new law would benefit everyone equally. And the term "married" could apply to straight couples when they sent out invitations, or gay couples (whom religious people could claim weren't getting 'married', but rational folks would know better).
The problem right now is that unlike all of the other minorities that have received rights in the past 100 or so years, gay people simply weren't as "out" even 25 years ago as they are today. You can't cover up the fact that you're black or a woman, but no one knew if they were working with a gay guy or a lesbian woman. And because of that, for a lot of the older generation, gay and lesbian folk are at least a little scary and unknown.
For anyone under the age of probably 35 or so right now, being gay isn't something to be ashamed of. I'll admit the first time that I met someone who was out, I was a little taken aback by it since I had never met anyone like that. But since that point, I now know a lot of out people and I have no problems with any of them. I will have no problems introducing my kids to them when they are much younger than I was. And I'll have no problem explaining to my children what is going on with them, and that it is something normal.
It's a definite change in the culture as we grow as a country. And, as stated, the older crowd who is against this type of thing (and who are still 'scared' of these unknown gay people) are dying out. One way or another, in the not too distant future I see this being overturned as a country, and before I die I fully expect the country to look back at these days as a disgraceful chapter in American civil rights. But unfortunately it will take a little time before we can move on with this particular issue.
mario said:
I'd be interested to know the data about age and religion - whether the younger generation is less religious, for example, or if they're just as religious but more accepting of LGBT rights.
Speaking as a (relatively) young and religious person... Religious people in my generation are much more accepting than our religious elders. There are still a small percentage who are resistant to LGBT rights, but that percentage is much smaller for the younger generation.
Which gives me encouragement for the future of Civil Rights for everyone.
(BTW, as a strong Christian, I like to point out to my fellow Christians that Jesus was the first advocate of Separation of Church and State when he said to "give unto Ceasar...")
@ petekent (not the sock puppet, I assume) -- I assume that you are one of the younger generation then? Even the younger Republican leaning people that I know have said it is stupid that gay people can't get married. It seems like you follow that?
"Holy matrimony" is a religious structure. "Marriage" is a civil structure.
5) If you scale the results by the usual turnout demographics, then Prop 8 loses.
This is factually incorrect as I showed above.
Ugh. So I'm supposed to wait until my 93 year old grandfather dies before my marriage license is valid? The very marriage license THAT HE SIGNED AS OUR WITNESS in October? Heartbreaking.
Redshift: That's a good point. It's probably flawed to rely too heavily on exit poll data, especially when you're comparing them directly to pre-election, non exit poll data. But is it really that difficult to believe that 50 percent more African Americans turned out for an election in a year of the first African American to secure the nomination of either major political party?
The substantive claim is that prop 8 is violative of longstanding equal protection jurisprudence among other well established principles.
This doesn't make sense from a con law standpoint. Prop 8 amended the CA constitution. Whether it violated pre-amendment constitution or other legal principles is irrelevant from a legal standpoint (unless you're arguing it violated US Constitution). Once properly amended, it's the law.
The black electorate in CA is tiny. In a situation such as this, I'm skeptical of exit polls declaring how black people voted. The sample is too small.
Look, um, why would black people vote 70% against gay marriage, when they are the least likely to marry, or be married? It doesn't make any sense.
I also don't buy the religious conservative angle either. People who have children nearly 80% out of wedlock are not conservative.
So I doubt it matters to them that much in the first place.
Having said that, if black people did vote against gay marriage: so what? Is the community only noticed when it isn't doing what others want? And folks should spare us the comparison to interracial marriage.
Interracial marriage was banned for many reasons: 1) Procreation, whites didn't want to see mixed children. (Too late!) 2) Whites didn't want white men passing their wealth to their mixed offspring. 3) Whites hate blacks, and want to keep White Supremacy in place. 4) And so on....
Well perhaps I am wrong, but many people think in those lines. Even slightly religious people who want gays to have all the rights that they have only have a problem with calling it a marriage. I think that they believe that marriage is ordained by God and it should be only between a man and a woman. Now if a federal law can be accomplished in which all the rights that married couples have applies to gays as well, with no room for discrimination, but the only difference being that it is not called a religious marriage, and the majority of people agree with that, I think that for now that is fair. No need to impose on people's religions I say.
non-judgement day is near
@ clarissa -- "Marriage is both a religious and a legal structure. They are not analalogous."
Exactly. Which is why I think we need to remove 'marriage' from being a legal structure completely, and leave that up to each individual church to decide.
Tax forms should ask if you are are:
[ ] Single
[ ] Legally United
Don't take away a group's rights that they clearly should have because a word is religiously related in some circles. Allow those churches that don't believe in gay marriage to be pissy by themselves.
I actually agree with goatdan. There needs to be a way so that this thing does not antagonize too much those that adhere tightly to religion.
so McCain is going to campaign for Chambliss in Georgia. Just when I thought McCain couldn't sink any lower, he does.
Why shouldn't McCain campaign for Chambliss? He's a party elder and Chambliss is the GOP running in a relatively important state election. I hope Martin wins, but I don't see why anyone should have a problem with McCain campaigning for a fellow Republican. Do you feel that he should shun Chambliss because of how Cleland (a fellow veteran) was treated six years ago?
One other thought on the exit polls... it's pretty well-established that all things being equal, pollsters approach voters exiting the polls who they a) feel are likely to respond; and b) feel more comfortable around. It would not surprise me that when attempting to meet their black target if pollsters tended to gravitate more toward older or at least more conservative-looking blacks. Yes, I know that in theory it's supposed to be a random sample, but that's simply not reality. It would be interesting to see a breakdown in terms of age of the black voters of the exit poll to see if that sort of bias was present.
Nate
Thanks for posting that article. I feel so much better!
-Maika
I agree that gay men and women have jumped the gun by assigning blame. But this is a group lashing out angrily. This anger will subside in time, I don't think there will be lingering prejudice.
I admit on the day of the election I was angry at the AA community for supporting prop 8.
However, I know that blaming them will get us nowhere.
The way we will win is to continue what we have been doing. Coming out publicly, interacting with our community. I bet we could convince another 10-20% of the electorate to support gay marriage if they actually knew gay people. If someone doesn't know anyone that's gay, they are much more likely to support prop 8.
The support for prop 8 is rooted in religion. We all know it's wrong and hypocritical. The younger generation (those under 40) support gay marriage and it's a matter of time.
Remember religious fundamentalism is the enemy :)
@ docbenny -- "I actually agree with goatdan."
Wow. I should print that and show that to my wife to prove to her that it is possible...
"There needs to be a way so that this thing does not antagonize too much those that adhere tightly to religion."
Like I said, that is the problem with it right now as an issue. In 20 years, I hope everyone thinks that it is stupid.
Regardless, I'd still like the word "marriage" removed from *all* of our legal documents since it seems to have been taken over by certain groups.
One other thing to keep in mind in CA is that over 2,000,000 of the ~13,000,000 ballots cast still haven't been counted, and that that number was, when the first reports were in from 100% of precincts (but not 100% of votes) closer over 2,700,000. The margin of victory for Prop 8 has been narrowing as those votes have been counted and added to the tallies.
Since the uncounted ballots are largely provisionals or absentee ballots returned on election day, and probably tilt toward newer voters, I would expect that the numbers were continue to narrow.
That's not to say that Prop 8 is going to lose (the margin is to wide for that to be likely, though its not mathematically impossible) only that arguments that are premised on presumptions about what the actual margin of victory for the measure is are premature.
Thank you for the clarification on this. Much misinformation has been spread about the Pro-Obama supporters also being anti-gay-marriage, and it looks like that isn't true.
The real culprit here is the No on 8 leadership. They ran an incoherent, whiney and defensive campaign without ever taking aim at the easy target religious extremist backers of this measure who are always unpopular in California. Tying prop 8 to it's backers(mainly the Mormon church) who force their gay children into conversion therapy and shock treatments as well as having racist histories would've created enough suspicion and doubt about it to tip the balance. Blame Geof Kors, Steve Smith, etc. for being to weak or stupid to run a politics 101 campaign. By the way, don't fool yourselves, it's going to be a generation before this gets turned around if at all.
Let's not forget that the yes-on-prop-8 side was organized and stuck to one message: "they are weird outsiders pushing their agenda onto US."
Gays and gay rights supporters could have countered this with good PR about how gays are people who love just like you, how would you feel if someone didn't let you marry someone you loved?
instead everyone decides to just play defense and say "well, no it has nothing to do with your schools" and "we're just like blacks who couldn't marry."
So big framing win for the bigots. They were well funded and organized.
googiecat, I agree generally that the No on 8 campaign was not well run. Although I'm not sure that the answer would have been to further assail the Mormon church. A day or two before the election there's was an ad featuring two male Mormon missionaries forcing themselves into a gay couple's house and then saying "What's the next right that we should take away?" as they left, and I don't think it was a very effective message.
By the way, don't fool yourselves, it's going to be a generation before this gets turned around if at all.
If the Democrats can control the presidency for the next 8-12 years, then I could see the Supreme Court ruling favorably on gay marriage by 2020. The key is replacing Scalia or Kennedy with a liberal justice (and not losing any of the current four seats to the conservatives).
One thing's for sure: within the next 10 years we are looking at a confirmation hearing at least as contentious as Bork and Thomas.
Dale posted:
"I'm not saying whether it will happen. Or even whether it should. But, don't many of the arguments to allow gay marriage also logically allow polygamy?"
My first response is that this type of logic doesn't determine laws. So, though it's legal for adults over 21 to drink alcoholic beverages or smoke cigarettes without prescriptions, they cannot legally obtain many other drugs over the counter. And though it may be legal to purchase a rifle or a pistol in a given jurisdiction, hand grenades may be off-limits for ordinary citizens.
That having been said, I just fail to understand the hue and cry about polygamy. If consenting adults want to marry more than one wife or husband, what's the problem? I would want it to be required that everyone involved testify in public and sign a notarized contract in public to the effect that they all consent to the arrangement, but I just don't see the problem. Not, however, that there will be any push for this in the U.S. today, so it's really a red herring, as anything more than a theoretical argument.
The thing about Polygamists is that the last thing they would want to do is join mainstream society. They know that their ways would simply evaporate against the tide of culture of the larger population. That's why they live in self sufficient compounds in the middle of the desert. They will never lobby for state sanctioned marriage
googiecat:
There are Muslims who might well lobby for legal recognition of their polygynous marriages, if they thought they had a chance. I actually have a friend of a friend who is in a polygynous marriage in the Buffalo area. She is a convert to Islam, her husband is a Muslim of extremist bent, and his second marriage was solemnized in a mosque but would merely be considered an extra-marital relationship under New York State law.
But I definitely agree that there is little to no possibility of polygamists lobbying for legal recognition of their marriages by voters or legislatures any time soon. If anything, they might try a court case, but with virtually no reason to hope that established precedents would be overturned on Constitutional grounds.
And the fact is, the idea of multiple marriages is substantially removed from the idea that two people of whatever sex may legally marry. Because look at what you have to change in order to alter the law in both cases.
@walt526
I find it unlikely we'll have a confirmation hearing as contentious as Thomas unless Obama or his successor inexplicably attempt to appoint someone so hugely unqualified.
I also (I know this is way way upthread) don't agree with your assessment of the current bench. Kennedy isn't 'moderate' he's 'persuadable'. He's reliably anti-abortion, but other than that he's pretty much at the mercy of his stronger benchmates. The first and second Bush have done spectacular job of diluting the conservative end of the bench, so in the future I expect a liberalising trend in Kennedy's votes (especially if, for some reason, Scalia retires before he does and is no longer around to bully him).
I don't think Obama is totally in the clear here. Sure, the first time voters may have broken against Prop. 8, but what about former voters who would have sat out the election if not for the chance to vote for a minority candidate in office.
As a Californian, I sat home in 2004 because there was no question as to which way the presidential vote would break, but were I there this year, I definitely would have voted. How many other Californians out there are like that, especially in the older minority population? Is there any way to figure out how they broke from the data?
Barack Obama made a colossal blunder on his way into the Presidency yesterday when he allowed information to leak concerning the details of his meeting with President Bush. Bush was reportedly seething over the leak. It seems President-Elect Obama does not know what is meant by “private talks”.
It casts a pall over his immediate future negotiations -- foreign or domestic – now people will go into discussions with an Obama administration with some level of doubt concerning the confidentiality of the proceedings.
Worse, the man who billed himself, at least subliminally, if not actually, on competence, as he tried to dilute the notion that he was noting more than an air-headed celebrity, is seen as having a club-footed beginning. The embarrassing disclosure of his leaky ship, now sheds on the Rahm Emmanuel pick, a less than flattering light.
Contrast Obama’s week with that of Sarah Palin. The much vilified Vice Presidential nominee has captivated the press as she has unleashed herself like no one else has done in recent history – more so even than Obama who faded to a degree after his political debut in 2004 and was not THE STORY of the post-election period as Palin currently is– at least this week.
Indeed Palin’s domination of the news cycle is benefiting Obama as it has pushed the whole story of his meet with Bush off the front pages, including the foot fault over leaking the details.
Meanwhile Palin is acquitting herself very well and has managed to go quite some distance toward rehabilitating her image. The primary impetus being the outrageous assertions that she did not know which countries comprise North America or that Africa was a continent instead of a country!
Despite Chris Matthews craven embrace of these patently false charges, they collapsed of their own weight and gave Palin an opening through which she drove the truck like force of her personality
She has more interviews, a speech and a press conference this week.
As I see it, Palin is on the upswing and is clearly the one to watch in this immediate post-election period.
Nate,
.....or not.
Dan Waters' take isn't a surprise. Though he is looked at as some kind of journalism icon in Sacramento, due to his long time reporting at the state house, his opinions are often hinky, and definitely of a conservative bias.
Prop 8 passed for a number of reasons unrelated to demographics. The first and foremost being that the No on 8 people ran a crappy campaign. They abstracted the issue, leaving gays, gay marriage, and marriage to be defined by the Yes on 8 people. The No on 8 ads and outreach were directed toward voters they already had and not tailored toward those confused on or unsure of the issue. If their campaign was about gays having the same right to form a family as anyone else it was left to people's imagination for family was rarely stressed. Instead the message was Prop 8 was "unfair" and would "take away rights." Both might be true, but are little comfort when the opposition are playing upon people's fears that the homos are gonna brainwash their kids to be gay through the schools.
The No on 8 people also rested on the early polls that showed that 8 was going to go down with a 60% NO vote. They allowed the Mormons and fundies to mobilize and strike the first propaganda blow, to define the issue. And the NO's didn't react until it the YES's already made their point and the polls started to tighten.
Also, a significant number of people were confused about what a YES or a NO vote meant. Some people thought that voting YES on 8 meant voting FOR the right for gays to marry.
Prop 8 didn't pass by much and had the NO on 8 organizer ran a better campaign and not rested on the early polls, the numbers could have gone to NO. Really, one ad with a typical middle class gay family, which didn't dodge that the issue was, at least as understood by the public, gay marriage and that this nice gay middle class family was just like everyone else would have killed 8.
As proof of the ease of mixing up the YES and NO on Prop 8, an earlier poster write "This is exactly what I've been saying. Even though it failed now, it will pass soon"
I assume by "failed" the poster means that the right of gays to marry failed not Prop 8. It is an easy slip, but not a good one when done in the voting booth.
It doesn't help to have Gavin Newsom practically write a script for the opposition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKn5LNhNto&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-TGqtpMGeU
Even his own ads sound like he's getting an army of "gay banditos" ready for an Appalachian invasion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPh0PQ89n6Y&feature=related
"CHANGE THE WORLD" works as political messaging when it's clear that you're talking about GLOBAL COOPERATION, but it's a tiny bit frightening to little old voters to hear that phrase used in regards to peoples sexual preference.
I think "whether you like it or not" will live in political infamy right along with George Allen's "Macca" moment as examples of the biggest political blunders of all time.
They share one common factor in how they came to be. Both comments were made to gain support for the person speaking, not for the cause they were celebrating. What Newsom and Allen have in common is a a devotion to themselves, not the public they represent.
(p.s. those ads played non-stop, three times an hour in California from the beginning of September till Nov.4)
Whether he was right in pushing gay marriage or not (I believe he was right), Newsom's intention was at least partially to shore up his reelection by capturing the gay vote.
Likewise, Dianne Feinstein was front and center in the No on 8 ads, for what? Because she was the top opponent of Prop 8 in California politics? Because she is universally admired and could sway voters? I am sure the No on 8 people thought both, but there is also the fact that she is setting herself up to run against Arnold in the next election for governor.
Cynical, yes, but any more so than a couple of pols using same sex marriage to advance their political careers?
I'm sorry but THE MATH IS WRONG. The author of the Sac Bee article seems to have simply multiplied 11 million votes x 0.035 extra African Americans x 0.7 Af-Am Support. And same with Hispanics using 11M x 0.05 x 0.53. That WILL give you an estimate of the number of extra votes in favor and it is greater than 500K.
BUT it ignores that additional votes AGAINST from those communities. Really the third term should be 0.4 (the margin of 'uncancelled' yes votes) for African Americans and *0.06* for Hispanics. This gives you a contribution of 165K extra votes in favor from these communities IF you rely on the statistics quoted in the article.
I'm not proud of the homophobia in my community (I'm black) and I don't deny it exists, but I sure hate to have it spread around that this travesty is somehow our fault, OR Obama's fault. Let's at least be accurate.
Your approximation of "new latino voters" with latino voters 18-29 is exactly the wrong statistic to use.
The argument is that Obama made first-time black voters of all ages show up, while any democrat would have had youth voters showing up for the first time.
Of course, that doesn't mean that Obama's candidacy helped the proposition, but I remain unconvinced.
I find it unlikely we'll have a confirmation hearing as contentious as Thomas unless Obama or his successor inexplicably attempt to appoint someone so hugely unqualified.
Thomas was an easy target because he so underqualified as well as Anita Hill. But I suspect that he would have faced a contentious confirmation hearing because he was a conservative replacing a very liberal Marshall.
In 1987, Bork faced a bruising confirmation because he was a hardline strict constructionist (or he might insist on the term "orginalist," which is essentially the same thing) who would replace a moderate (Powell). His lengthy bibliography and role in the Saturday night massacre was just icing on the cake that made it that much easier for Biden, Teddy Kennedy, etc. to argue against him. In the future, a similarly swing justice will be just as contentious.
Andrea said "...I think that we still have some room for inroads with people who do not have a firm religious stance against us, would even be OK with civil unions, but still don't think we should get to call ourselves "married." "
That group hardly exists, in reality: that's where the "gay Bradley effect" lives. Lots of people will SAY, here on an Internet board or to a pollster, that they would be fine with a "Civil Union" giving all the same legal rights, as long as the M-word isn't used; but they VOTE to ban civil unions as well. In any poll that asks the question two-way "for/against" gay marriage, some will lie; the way to get an honest assessment is to ask the question three-way, including that "CU-but-not-M" option for the Bradleys, and then lump them in with the antis.
I do not mean to necessarily insult docbenny or anyone else publicly claiming that position: you might well be sincere and honest; however, there aren't many such in the population at large.
We learned this in my state of Michigan, where Prop. 2 of 2004 banned anything "similar" to marriage. Somebody asked about such language in Virginia: will it ban joint health insurance? Well that depends on your state Supremes; in Ohio it didn't, but our Michigan court (rated the worst in the country by one survey of lawyers) struck down insurance, and probably would even strike down wills or powers of attorney-- but, one of the pleasant surprises on election day was that the chief justice was ousted, tipping the balance of the court from 4-3 in favor of the ultra-Christians to 3-4 the other way.
Anyhow, that's where I learned how the polls on this really work. The polls asking if you would vote Yes/No on Prop 2 showed it losing; but if you looked at three-way questions, marriage / civil-union only / no to both, and added the CU-only percentages to the "no way", you got the ACTUAL Yes on 2 percentage.
Not like I think that many are reading this now, but it is worth saying... on the topic of polygamous marriage...
*I* think that the biggest issue about polygamous marriage is simple the legal ramifications that it causes. For instance, in the case of a wrongful death, wouldn't the court need to pay out the fee for each spouse that a person has? When it comes to that stuff, things get a lot messier.
But, correct me if I'm wrong, you theoretically can be part of a polygamous marriage as long as you don't legally claim to be so in the United States. As far as I am aware, there is nothing stopping people from living together as long as they do not claim to all be reliant upon one another.
To me, this is all even a further argument in favor of causing everything civil (or legal) unions. You can have a union with one other person at a time. That person is whom your benefits would go to in case of death, they could visit you in the hospital, they would be able to make decisions for you if need be, and so on.
Solves all the issues, while leaving fundamentalists unable to shout about what marriage "should" be. At least, that's what I think...
I am sorry Nate, but I disagree. The Black and Latino vote did push it over the top. It was the church going Black and Latino population, but their margins were much higher than the older White population. We cannot blame this on Obama at all, but we can say that when the Oppressed are so quick to become the Oppressors, we have a problem.
Now that Obama is president-elect, he needs to speak out clearly. He quietly noted that he did not think it should pass before the election, but would not say more out of fear of impact (imagine Palin going off on that). But, he should speak out now about how he feels about equal rights for all - the excuse that it is a religious decision (as many Black and Latino voters stated in exit polls) is as absurd as when that was used in the 50s and 60s to stop interracial marriages.
I thought I'd point something out. In 2004, there were 14.2 million registered voters in California, and 90% of them voted, for a total of 12.8 million votes cast. In 2008, there were 17.3 million registered, 90% of whom would be 15.6 million votes.
As of now, the CA Sec'y of State reports 11.55 million votes tabuled, which leaves a little more than 4 million votes left to be counted. That means about 25% of CA's votes are still uncounted.
No one's talking about this, or about the massive number of votes elsewhere around the country that have not been counted. Everyone is so blissed-out by Obama's election victory that they've decided not to even notice that the election machinery is more fucked up than ever.
Maybe prop 8 passed because of the ridiculous number of people (even in this comment thread) who still don't realize that supporting Prop 8 = voting AGAINST gay marriage.
But, he should speak out now about how he feels about equal rights for all - the excuse that it is a religious decision (as many Black and Latino voters stated in exit polls) is as absurd as when that was used in the 50s and 60s to stop interracial marriages.
I'm for repealing Prop 8 through the courts, but I'm against Obama taking a stand on the issue for strategic reasons. The previous two Democratic presidents got distracted early on in their presidencies by taking on a divisive, but peripheral social issue: for Carter it was signing the extension of the deadline for passage of the ERA, for Clinton it was gays in the military. It gave the GOP something to run against in the midterms and it cost both political capital in crucial swing states.
Overall, the country is still firmly center-right on social issues with the exception of abortion. Obama (and Hillary Clinton, for that matter) did not run on a socially progressive agenda because the Democratic leadership knows that the median voter (particularly in most swing states) is more likely to side with conservative position. Obama is going to need Red/Purple State Democrats in both the Senate and House to pass items like economic stabilization, healthcare, and energy reform. Keeping their support will be a lot easier if their constituents aren't threatening to vote for a GOP challenger at the next opportunity on account of a (relatively speaking) fringe social issue.
If you want to see gay marriage (and other progressive social issues) protected, then the Democrats maintaining control of the White House and Congress is essential in order to secure the appointment of liberal justices. If Obama tries to push through a liberal social agenda, then he's making it much, much easier for a Palin or a Huckabee to get elected in 2012, to say nothing of Congress.
If gays and lesbians push for a national referendum on gay marriage, then they are more likely to wind up with a constitutional amendment against it within the next 10 years than any sort of national consensus for it. Be patient and give the Democrats time to replace Kennedy or Scalia on the Supreme Court and then push the issue. We're within 8-12 years from that occurring. Meanwhile, let Obama and the 111th Congress focus on implementing the agenda that they ran on--one that did not include overt support for gay marriage.
I'm disgusted with both the Yes and the No campaigns, because neither admits what this is really about. The Yes ads essentially said "Our main concern is to keep children from finding out that people of the same sex sometimes marry each other. That's why we've taken out full-page ads in the newspaper, aired commercials on TV, and generally made this into a Current Event." The No side claims all they want is equal rights under the law, yet domestic partners are already given the same rights as married couples under California law.
What neither side will admit is that they see legal recognition as dictating social acceptance, since the various religions in our society can't agree. That seems misguided. The state Supreme Court doesn't make the determination of whether you need to invite your son-in-law along with your son to Thanksgiving dinner, or whether you can invite your friend to a party without her wife. The authority charged with making that determination is Miss Manners.
Another way to look at Prop 8 is as a trademark dispute. Heterosexuals are claiming that homosexuals have violated their trademark, "marriage".
It will be interesting to see how the court cases are decided and the political reaction to them. I'd like to cast George Takei in the role of Joe the Plumber (since he did so well as Mr. Sulu), just to illustrate a few questions. Takei disputed (speaking on CNN, I believe) the theory that Prop 8 applies retroactively and places his marriage to Brad Altman in "limbo" (anchor's term -- I prefer "temporal anomaly").
1. In theory, if the proposition had read "Marriage is defined as being between two persons of the same race", and it would had the same effect of retroactively annulling Takei's marriage (or not). Of course, in practice I doubt that would have gotten 15% of the vote, at least in California, let alone 50.01%, but that's beside the point. The thought that 50.01% of the voters can annul existing marriages may be disturbing to people in interracial hetereosexual marriages and their friends and families, now that it seems like a real possibility. That alone might sway 2 or 3% to vote differently. Not that that will make any difference now: whether or not the courts decide that a majority can pass Prop 8, it's indisputable that a majority can't repeal it.
2. How will it play politically when people sue to annul their neighbor's marriages? It won't happen automatically. Takei contends that he's still legally married, and the Attorney General agrees. The couple already has the same legal rights whether they're married or not, so they won't have cause to sue the state to prove it. Therefore, if some of the Prop 8 proponents are opposed to the existence of any same-sex marriages (not just afraid it will be required to be covered in school), they will have to go to court and ask that the marriages be annulled. I'm not sure who would have standing to do that. Maybe a church-affiliated hospital that wants to deny visitation rights to a same-sex spouse? If that law forbids that (not sure), it probably also them denying it to a domestic partner.
3. Let's assume the court cases and appeals last as long as court cases usually do, and let's unkindly assume that Takei's marriage lasts as long as the average celebrity marriage. Will Takei be denied a right that is even more important to Hollywood celebrities -- the right to a divorce? How can a court grant him a divorce when there's still a pending case to decide whether he was ever married? What if he remarries in the meantime (and there must be some people in that situation who are bisexual and might happen to enter into a legally undisputed marriage). If Prop 8 is later overturned, would they be guilty of retroactive bigamy?
Scott - I understand that Arnold is term-limited out. Feinstein may well run for governor, but it won't be against him. Keep in mind that Feinstein's career was stalled before she became SF Mayor with the shooting of Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk. She was at City Hall when it happened. Much as she is a very frustrating senator to have, this may have actually been at least somewhat personal for her.
And Andrew up thread -- I am furious and I will not let it pass. I look forward to finding out more about why Prop 8 passed. Bigotry is bigotry whether you hide it behind religion or not.
Kak
Just to step in concerning my reading of the chances the CA SC will bring Prop 8 down :
In most judicial cases in Europe where a referendum changed the constitution without the valid process to do so, the courts decided in favor of the result of the referendum.
This may seem unlawful, as law is a lot about following the right process, but the argument the judges make is logical :
the constitution is by the people and for the people, so if the people decide something, then a judge has no right to go against it.
The SC judges may be going against their lawful belief, but its hard to justify that the people cannot decide on their own.
I'm certainly no expert as it concerns State law and CA in particular, but overseas that is what has happened.
So NOW you're using exit poll numbers? I thought you "threw" them away? Hypocrite... Why not reform your statement---exit polls are a great (and the only) source for public opinion and a piece of the election night projection coverage. Not the end all, be all for projections, but the only window into why voters voted the way they do.
walt526, your point is valid that you do not want to get bogged down. But, making a statement of what you believe is not the same as trying to enact laws on such social issues.
Note that during the debates this came up. The D statement was "against marriage" but in favor of "civil unions" with all the same rights.
My feeling is that we need to change the concepts a bit to get the social conservatives to back off. The problem is that the Government has its own definition of marriage and so do religions. So, you can be legally married under the law, but not recognized as married by some religions and certainly vice versa. If we were clearer about the definition of a civil marriage vs. a religious marriage, this could ease the problem.
On a related topic, the "Yes on 8" people lied outright in claiming that schools would be "required" to teach about gay marriage - there is no such law on the books (they do not have to teach about marriage at all for that matter). Likewise, they lied by saying churches would have to perform gay marriages - there is no such law about that either, any more than a Catholic priest is required to marry a Jewish couple say. Again, religious marriage ceremonies and legal marriage are separated, such that a legal marriage requires paperwork and a "valid" person to perform the ceremony (which can be a clerk).
Thanks for providing some facts on this issue. It's so frustrating to see good people fighting about who deserves rights more and who is more hateful... especially when it's all fabricated.
walt526, your point is valid that you do not want to get bogged down. But, making a statement of what you believe is not the same as trying to enact laws on such social issues.
The problem is that Obama's greatest sway over Democrats in Congress is the promise that he'll help them raise money for their next re-election campaign. His appeal is severely limited in Red, Purple, and even some solid Blue states if he's seen as a liberal extremist who's not "one of them."
That was Obama's biggest challenge in 2008, more so in the Democratic primary, to convince voters that he wasn't too alien to middle America. He ran the "whitest" campaign of any modern Democrat so as to avoid the slightest appearance of being different. He did so deliberately, as he was well aware that swing voters would overreact to the slightest hint that he was out-of-touch with personal issues important to them, such as faith and family.
Coming out decisively for gay marriage would jeopardize his ability to connect with voters in states like IN, OH, PA, VA. He'll need those states in 2012 and the Democrats need to keep winning in those states in 2010. If he can only raise money in the Northeast and Pacific Coast (ie, revert to Gore/Kerry base of support), then he will not be able to govern effectively.
Rightly or wrongly, he made the conscious decision to abandon progressive social issues and focus on economic policies during his campaign. He owes it to the nearly 70 million people who voted for him to do everything he can to pass the agenda that he ran on and not jeopardize it by chasing after peripheral issues to his mandate.
If you wanted a diehard liberal, then you should have voted for Kucinich. Of course, had he been the Democratic nominee, we'd be bracing for a McCain presidency.
Walt, I agree that Obama had to run a very careful and "conservative" campaign. But, I think the country is so focused on the economy (and their houses and jobs) that he has options to speak clearly about issues without letting them become distractions.
His statement about closing Gitmo is a good example of this. As long as he uses the "3 statements about economy, 1 about something else, 3 about economy, etc" approach, he should be in good shape.
I think the Gay marriage thing can stop being a wedge issue if the terms are corrected to separate "legal marriage" vs. "religious marriage". By making it clear that religions do not have to marry anyone they do not want to, but the government's "marriage contract" is a different matter, we can move past this. Abortion is one that has shifted in large part because the two extremes on either side are getting marginalized by the center which can divide up the problem into manageable pieces.
Note that I am happy Obama is likely to be a centrist on fiscal issues - that is optimal in my view.
The median voter in a swing state is closer on closing Gitmo or even legalized abortion than institutionalizing gay marriage.
You may be right, but my feeling is that this is because they have mixed notions of marriage; many view it as a religious matter. Put another way, if the US got rid of "marriage" as a contract and changed it to "civil unions" as a contract for all, and returned "marriage" as a term back to religions, things would be easier to see. This would mean that a religion could "marry" someone and also could sign the "civil union" contract form from the state/county, but a county clerk could perform a civil-union-ceremony for anyone. Obviously it is just absurd semantics.
PaulK said "...if the US got rid of "marriage" as a contract and changed it to "civil unions" as a contract for all, and returned "marriage" as a term back to religions"
WHOA! Stop right there. Religions do not own "marriage"; marriage IS a legal institution, which existed long before Christianity. The GDC's do not have the right to steal the word. They are welcome to the word "wedding", for their ceremony, or "matrimony", for the state that results from such a ceremony, since those words are not used in the legal code. "Marriage" is the legal contract, period. You can hold a fancy wedding in the National Cathedral, but if you did not get a marriage license from the clerk and duly record it, that was not a "marriage".
Connecticut has just ruled that its Constitution must allow for gay marriages now joining Massachussets. So maybe 18,000 CAs will be moving to those two states. I hope and pray they don't have to. My burning question has been "What harm have these 18,000 marriages done to the hetero community?" How have they personally affected you and your loved ones? Have you investigated the number of divorces and filed divorces during the same period of time? Another burning question "What number is "gay marriage" on the hay agenda?" How many numbers are there on the gay agenda? I'm 67 yrs old and have never seen a published list of the "gay agenda" and I've been gay since the age of 6. There was a picture of a man standing on the curb in the "Washington Post" holding a sign "NO ON 8". He was in his late twenties. The reporter failed to ask him "Why?" Please don't recite back to me the tired old bible stuff, because if you ate pork anytime in your life your condemned to hell, just as you believe I am (Because the bible tells me so)
Please do not throw Obama under the bus for this one.
Obama has been forceful in his belief that there should be civil unions at the FEDERAL level – not just the state level – and would have all the benefits of hetero couples – taxes, immigration etc.
In comparison, Hillary stuttered when faced with such a thought and even raised the idea of immigration fraud if gays received immigration benefits. Hell Hillary couldn't even say 'gay' when interviewed on LOGO.
I would rather that a federal civil union that would allow my partner to enter and work in the US legally than to have a state union that means nothing in key areas of my life - money and immigration – and would mean that my rights are void when I cross state lines.
Obama has also spoken repeatedly in black churches against homophobia but that has gone underreported by mainstream media. As someone has pointed out, his church was unabashedly welcoming to the gay community, something that seemed to have been lost in the crazy Rev. Wright garbage.
This result should not have been a surprise. It isn't exactly a secret that many blacks find the parallel between gay rights and black rights uncomfortable and have said so repeatedly. But the white gay community has been more than content to ignore it because in their minds blacks don't matter and don't vote. Surprise!
Unfortunately I feel this has exposed what many gay people of color know all to well. That there are some pretty noxious bigots in the white gay community that have now been given permission to pull off their closet hoods. A black lesbian living in the Castro has been called 'black bitch' to her face in her own neighborhood. Gay black participants in Prop 8 protests were called n*ggers more than once.
Way to win over the advocates WE NEED to win.
Without gay people of color talking to friends and relatives, the fight against Prop 8 and others like it will go no where.
There's more than enough blame to go around on this. Let's move forward and embrace everyone.
I would think that since the Mormon's and the black churches put so much money into defeating prop 8, that some one would challenge both of their IRS non-profit status. If it's as heavy as y'all have said, it would be a good one for the IRS to get into.
Thank you Nate for putting a proper perspective on this controversial issue. The "Right" is now trying to pit minorities against minorities, gays against blacks, which is not the case.
As people have said, it may very well be a semantics issue (or as I put it above, a trademark dispute over the word "marriage"). If laws recognized only "civil unions" and "marriage" became like "confirmation" and "baptism", the legal part of the dispute might very well go away.
Contrast that with other hot-button issues. Renaming "abortion" to be a "civil miscarriage" wouldn't change anyone's mind. On the other hand, the two sides on that issue can't even agree on the name of the issue they're "pro" or "anti". And then there's the attempt to rename "therapeutic cloning" to "somatic cell nuclear transfer" to avoid the C-word used for making a new person. I'm not sure whether that helped or not.
Unfortunately, as long a majority of Americans view homosexuality as a CHOICE people make of their own free will (and an immoral one at that), same-sex marriage will have an uphill and difficult battle. The reason many ethnic minorities don't see same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue akin to interracial marriage is that they think homosexuals can choose not to be homosexual, while they know they can't choose not to be black or Latino or Asian or whatever.
It's easy for those of us on the other side of the fence to dismiss that argument as just silly and misinformed, but it's a pervasive and powerful belief, and it is the single biggest thing that stands in the way of the homosexual community achieving full civil rights recognition. It's also the reason the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign was able to sway so many voters with the "they'll teach gay marriage to your children in public schools" tactic. Many people are genuinely afraid that if same-sex relationships gain the same social standing as heterosexual ones, their children will CHOOSE to be gay.
Gay rights advocates need to realize that THIS is where they need to change hearts and minds. Once a majority of people truly believe that sexual orientation is no more a choice than gender or ethnicity, they will recognize that discimination based on sexual orientation is the real abomination.
Nate:
You make the case that it's a generational issue and not a racial one based on two pieces of data: (1) that if the electorate had been the same as 2004 then it still would have passed and (2) if there had been no over-65 voters, it would likely not have passed. But, you can't use (1) as evidence that it was not a racial issue if you are going to use (2) as evidence that it is a generational issue.
What you need to use instead is a piece of data regarding how the vote would have gone had there been no black voters. The problem, though, is that according to the exit polling, it would have been very close and might not have passed in that case. Now, I'm working completely off of the exit polling which has it as passing 52/48 with black voters representing 10% of the vote at a 70/30 margin. It's pretty simple math from that data to see that with no black voters it would have been 50/50.
Now, I don't want to blame any group for the vote, but it's not fair to peg this on older folks when the same reasons for pegging it on them exists regarding other groups.
Bob X "WHOA!" - note that I was using this as a hypothetical to show that the problem is that we have one word for two concepts. I was not advocating we seriously change terms.
any validity to the report that low turnout in 'bluer' counties contributed? for example only 50.5% of san francisco county voters turned out at the polls.
There isn't any "validity to the report," because there aren't any facts to support the "report," which I suspect you simply invented out of whole cloth.
San Francisco County's turnout is currently running at 75% of registered voters. In 2004, CA's turnout was 90% of RVs. There are still 25% of the state's votes left to be counted.
To the extent that this is a religious issue, the First Amendment is relevant. The churches that oppose mixed marriages don't have to perform them, but they don't get to outlaw them. Ditto for churches that won't allow divorced people to remarry.
Why is it somehow okay for a church that opposes same-sex marriage to say that churches that support it can't perform those marriages? Civil marriage is a civil right, and that's what the IRS cares about. Religious marriage rules differ between religions: some limit who can be married by gender, some by whether both parties are of the same religion, or both baptized, or whether either has previously been divorced. And they're free to tell me that I am not married for Catholic (or other religious) purposes, but that doesn't affect my standing with the state of New York.
This discussion of who is "responsible" for Prop 8 is an absurd racial blame game. It really is quite pointless to attack groups based on whether they voted for or against Prop 8. Yes, maybe a greater percentage of African-Americans voted for Prop 8 than other ethnic groups, but if white voters had voted against Prop 8 by merely 3 more points, then it would have failed as well.
Many have talked about homophobia in the African-American community and racism in the GLBT community (one commentator noting that Obama had lower GLBT support compared to every other Democratic nominee for President, and that Clinton had overwhelming GLBT support in the primaries). Both may be valid to some degree--although the incidences are likely no greater than the general population--but I see neither to be the point. In fact, discussions such as these merely reinforce existing perceptions of bias.
I think the issue of race plays out more in whether the GLBT civil rights movement is perceived as being the authentic successor to the 1960s civil rights movement. One senses general discomfort in the African-American community in including GLBT equality as part of MLK's "dream." There is just no general sense of shared struggle, despite several parallels such as anti-miscegenation laws. I mention this generalization only to show that the GLBT community has done a poor job in reaching out and persuading these voters that they do share in the same struggle, and by extension, that the GLBT civil rights movement is a legitimate part of Dr. King's legacy.
But ultimately the anti-Prop 8 movement failed to bring out the voters. The votes were there to be had, but they were out-organized by a strong coalition of religious groups (giving even greater credence to the importance of voter turnout in state elections, such as California, where Democratic turnout due to a perceived victory might be depressed... in fact, I would be far more interested in determining whether Prop 8 could have been defeated if California had simply been perceived as "close" in the Presidential race.)
As for arguments over the merit of the recent challenge over Prop 8 to the California Supreme Court, I find it unpersuasive. In all likelihood, Prop 8 will stand, BUT the controversy over the validity of already-performed marriages is way overblown because the CA S.Ct. just will not invalidate these marriages. The court will not apply Prop 8 retroactively because Prop 8 did not explicitly state that it would apply retroactively. Courts uniformly deny applying Amendments retroactively, and only begrudgingly permit them in certain cases, but only when it is made explicit. There is no evidence of the ban being retroactive, and arguing for this interpretation would run afoul of the California Constitution as well as other California election laws regarding voter information. Clearly, this is recognized by even Prop 8 supporters, as the pro-Prop 8 coalition has openly stated that they will not be seeking to invalidate existing marriages. If the CA S.Ct. does, for some bizarre reason, annul these marriages, expect all hell to break loose and all bets are off. Hell, I'll fly across country and protest myself.
In the end, California voters should expect to get comfortable with this appearing on the ballot every two years until it gets passed. They will not wait for 2012, voter fatigue be damned, out of fear that voter perceptions will become entrenched... and I say, fight on!
As for those expecting Obama to change things nationally on this matter, I say "dream on." Not going to happen. Neither will SCOTUS tackle this issue for a long time. Expect the hate crimes law to be passed sometime in 2009... and ENDA in 2011 if a large Democratic majority can survive a mid-term election. For those of us that have fought for GLBT civil rights all our lives, let me impress upon all of you the imperative of passing this legislation in Obama's first term. Call your Congressman and Senator and make your voice heard.
Rome was not built in a day, and GLBT civil rights advocates should take a deep breath because civil rights struggle are not won overnight.
Michaelw552, I am not gay (or any of GLBT) nor do I have any family members who are (unless very well closeted). I am simply in favor of equal rights (civil rights).
I think it is fair to raise disparities in the voting patterns of sub-groups, but not turn it into blame or certainly not into racism, etc. But, its validity matters because it shows what groups need to be educated. I think what is most notable in this case is that those who complain about being oppressed are quite quick to oppress another group. Saying that they do not see it this way does not excuse it anymore than it would if they oppressed Muslims or Tongans - oppression is oppression, no matter what dress you put on it. MLK certainly understood this.
The fact that the YesOn8 people used the churches to campaign is not a coincidence - the NoOn8 people often would have no ability to access that venue.
As to the turnout, CA had a greater than normal turnout, so I do not think you can blame it on that.
Finally, as to Obama; what he says will be listened to. Refusing to speak out because you are afraid certainly is not the change we can believe in. The civil rights movement was aided a lot by politicians who used their positions to speak out and we should not forget that. Note that speaking out uses far less political capital than trying to pass laws.
maybee I'm an idealist but this shouldn't be an issue in 2012, this filthy unconstitutional and unjust tripe should have never been an issue to vote on. Not only does it spit on the constitution of usa and equal rights for all, but the vote yes commercials and documentation is so full of bull s*** that I'm surprised any educated, sane, rational person could vote this into law even if they don't approve of their lifestyle.
When u lie and say it effects education, children, taxes and such it'll come and bite u in the arse later and hopefully usa will pass equal rights in all states for gay/lesbian marriage.
Your hate is a poison to your soul, and for u religious people that u do to the least of my children that u do onto me. Think u go into heaven with hate firmly gripping your heart, or do u think that will be one of your sins that u will need to repent? For the uneducated; just shut the hell up!
Why isn't anyone questioning the spending of 40 million dollars by the MORMON church to ban gay marriage.
The IRS has established laws against this and here they are:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf
Second: Why is a church spending 40 million dollars to ban gay marriage when the money could have been used to feed the poor, help the homeless, pay mortgages for members losing there homes, pay or help in someones medical bills and the countless other ways to help people.
Why is not a member of this congregation even questioning the use of 40 million dollars in this manner. As a Catholic, if my church spent 40 million dollars to ban gay marriage they would never see a dime from me FOREVER yet these people who give their church money are happy with the way it is being spent.
IS this what following the bible is all about and YOU PEOPLE THINK it is ok for a church to be using its donations for this purpose?
This is proof that these people are stupid ignorant brainwashed people who cannot think for themselves and this church's motives are political and NOT charitable and thus should lose their non-profit status immediately.
LETS hit where it hurts in the pocketbook since the morons who belong to this church seem to be incapable of thinking rationally for themselves.
WHERE ARE THE LAWYERS AND PROSECUTORS on this..THEY BROKE THE LAW
Protests in LA today: 5 to 7pm at Mormon Temple and 7pm in West Hollywood. Many California city halls on Saturday. Sign up for alerts at www.afterprop8.org.
How do you account for the NPR article which said that 70% of black Californians voted for the ban?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/newsandviews/2008/11/blackgay_prop_8_backlash.html
The Mormon Church didn't spent 40 million dollars. Their members did as voluntary contributions by private citizens. That is a substantial legal difference.
The church itself is listed as having donated $2500 in funds used for travel expenses by its leaders.
They were even careful not to preach on this from their church pulpits. They simply did not violate any IRS regulations in this. They were very careful in how they did it. You should expect that an entity with billions of dollars in assets and wealth would have the expert legal counsel necessary to accomplish what they want while at the same time avoiding the violation of standing laws and regs.
Can anyone expound on what it means to "blame" (or attribute agency to) a demographic group for the passage of of Prop 8?
The sentence "More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage," seems a bit philosophically flawed to me, in its implication that it was older voters caused the passage of the measure. Didn't it take every single vote (minus the disparity between the yes and no votes +1) to pass the measure? A vote is a vote no matter who it comes from. If a lower percentage of ANY demographic voted for Prop 8, we might have a different outcome.
I am pretty sure (and correct me if I'm mistaken here) that it is epistemologically unsound to attribute agency in a situation like this to any demographic group. In other words, all that the numbers can tell us are which groups of people opposes or supported the measure, but no actual fault can be attributed.
On the other hand, certainly these statistics are useful in informing people which demographic groups to target for future education on marriage equality (or on the "protection of marriage" if you are in that camp), etc. I just think that "blame" and that attribution of agency are the wrong terms to use and wrong concepts to be thinking of here.
Maid of Honor said..."I would think that since the Mormon's and the black churches put so much money into defeating prop 8, that some one would challenge both of their IRS non-profit status."
We need as many citizen complaints filed as possible. The forms are here:
http://lds501c3.wordpress.com
Enclose the Salt Lake Tribune articles as factual substantiation (the amounts coming directly from the church were small, in comparison to the donations from members, but constitute a bright-line violation of the law; hanging them for soliciting contributions is wandering into a murkier area).
It's hard for me to imagine SCOTUS getting a case like this and /not/ overturning the ban as unconstitutional. I'm well aware of the records of the conservative members, but, in my mind, it just seem so *wrong* to deny minorities rights and privileges that are given to everyone else with no strings attached.
I can't possibly see how this could be seen as constitutional. As long as marriages are treated as a legal entity by the Federal and State governments, it's no longer a question of what is dictated by religion. If all men were truly created equal, why aren't we treating them equally?
Nate Silver misses two key points.
(1) It's not "new" voters, but Black and Latino voters who were unlikely to vote we need to look at. Age may help predict the future, but it doesn't explain the impact of Obama getting unlikely minority voters of all ages to the polls.
(2) The LGBT community did not reach out to the Black/Latino Churches as well as we should have. We should have involved Black and Latino voters (particularly Black and Latino Christians) more directly.
This should not be about "blame" so much as a missed opportunity. You want blame? If Fundamentalist Christians had not showed up to the polls, Prop 8 would have been defeated.
Here's what we can learn from Dan Walters and the exit polls: The LGBT community needs to do a better job of reaching out to racial minorities if we want our constitutionally guaranteed civil rights upheld by popular vote.
A lot of you have made good points. However, the pure idea of a marriage, IS and will ALWAYS be 1 Man 1 Woman. Why? Because marriage is ment to make one person responsible for the other AND their offspring.
I know, I have the child support to prove it.
I really do not mind if you or anyone else is gay, however it is considered by more than 80% of the people in the world, "against nature". As Sex is really meant for "procreation" not recreation as it is used now.
If you are "gay" and religious, that is a farce. The people who have said they were religious And gay on here, especially Baptist, are really contradicting themselves, as the Judeo-Christian ethics/beliefs say Gay is not the way.
So, though blacks, hispanics, are "races", they really didnt have a choice in "what they are", however, despitethe findings that "gay" is more a genetic defect, yes I said defect, as it is a supposed mutation of some DNA Gene (In pure scientific terms).
So in effect, having sex of the gay persuasion is in effect a choice for recreation. So "gay" is in fact, not a race, its almost like a gang/club/orginization.
And other than marriage, Gay people have every right under the US Constitution as anyone else.
And I hate to sound even more like an ignorant redneck, but to quote Larry the Cable Guy ....
"I was going to work the other day and there was a Gay Pride rally clogging up the roads. They were screaming 'We're here and We're queer", and I honked my horn and screamed 'I'm Straight and Im late'"
OneHipCat, I am sorry, but you really are very ignorant.
1st of all, marriage as originally intended makes the woman chattel (property) - do we still do that? It was also intended to move the "control" of the woman from her father to her spouse; you may not have noticed, but in modern times, woman are allowed to make their own decisions.
Marriage as a legal matter in the modern world is about management of property (real property, not woman), taxes, legal rights and obligations, and other factors. All apply equally to any married couple, regardless of what gender. Since married gay couples can have children (adopted, from previous situation, through sperm donation, or rent-a-moms), the same rules apply.
Many people around the world think other races are "against nature" or inferior. Our own constitution used to list black people as 3/5ths of a person. Does that make it right? Ignorance and stupidity of the masses does not make something true.
Do we decide which religion is right based on which has the majority of adherents? I think that may be Islam now, so you have to switch - sorry.
Being gay is genetic as is race and natural hair color and height and so on. Your comment is as absurd as saying short people are short by choice. Being short is not a race, but it is genetic. Being short is not a defect. Being gay is simply a genetic characteristic, it is not a defect in the sense you mean. Many characteristics appear to defy or limit procreation, but they are not considered defects. Given that many gay people want to have children, their drive to procreate is not defective, so your model makes no sense.
Our society is not limited to the worst of any religion. The old testament says an eye for eye, but we do not do that. If you want that kind of literal reading of a religious tract, I suggest you join the Taliban. You are not very "hip" as far as I can see.
/Sigh
OneHipCat spewed (among other things):
Because marriage is ment to make one person responsible for the other AND their offspring.
So, infertile heterosexual couples can't marry, right? There's a test kit there at the county clerk's office to tell whether or not it's possible for all couples who want a license to conceive babies, I suppose?
I know, I have the child support to prove it.
And even if you never married your child's mother, you'd be subject to making child support payments.
Hmmm, my verification word is "supidi." /Snort
The SF Chron. on their SFGate website provides a list of contributors pro and con Prop. 8. Don't neglect to check either "supports" or "opposes".
http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/
Nate, you missed the point here. The point was that the AA community as a whole, not just new voters, were told by the Yes on 8 people that Obama supported the proposition. I have the screenshot of their deceptive ad. So what percentage of voters vote with the top of the ticket? Straight democratic voters (such as AAs) that thought the democratic vote on 8 was yes are the difference in such a thinly decided proposition, it's not just a talking point, and your analysis above almost starts with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it. Disappointing Nate, you're a better scientist than that.
Blaming the No on 8 people is easy, but not necessarily true. For instance, many people have asked where the protests were before the passage of Prop 8? Well... in Pasadena, CA they were on the corner of Colorado and Lake... in Hollywood they were marching in the streets... the news just didn't cover it: there was a historic election at hand.
Bottom line, as sick as this may be, the rights of gay and lesbian people will always represent a fantastic fund raising matchstick for "evangelicals".
Silver sets a good example for people interested in evidence-based management. He does a great job of disputing the various race-based theories about the Prop 8 outcome. In framing the question around age, not race, he avoids ranting about standard deviations and cross-tabs, instead offering a well-articulated, plain-English explanation.
"But what are the chances of a countervailing constitutional amendment effort in 2010? 2012?"
MJ said...
"This is exactly what I've been saying. Even though it failed now , it will pass soon "
It may not pass soon. Prop. 8 required a "NO" vote to create a ban on gay marriage. NO votes are historically much easier to achieve than YES votes.
It's possible that a ballot measure could still be written to win, but this was progressives' best shot for awhile.
i think we should pass an amendment on IGNORANT BIGOT RELIGOUS PSYCHOS who have nothing better to do than take other peoples rights away... Guess what i think the poeple who believe in the bible are owned by satan so lets ban them from blogging... you people are bigots... and gay marriage does not effect your life one bit... what r u afraid of that u will be gay too? must be alot of closet cases out there
I read every comment on this blog and they are the most thought out I've ever read on any blog. If this ever gets to the US Supreme Court, please file a "friend of the court", since y'all make such great arguments. How many of you are lawyers?
democracy is when people vote the Democratic way
Suppose we could blame Prop. 8's passage on African Americans, Mormons, Catholics, fundamentalists, truck drivers, CPAs, landscape architects, whatever . . . what difference would it make? Going out and taking "revenge" on that group wouldn't change the law.
What we need is votes, not scapegoats.
I don't think it's an issue between races. I think it's a religious issue. And like Nate stated, a generational issue. Most religions aren't tolerant and that is the problem. Personally, I think not allowing marriage is against the constitution which America has fought so hard to keep in a balance.
I really agree whole-heartedly with what walt526 said:
"So to Obama and the Democrats in Congress, please just focus the next four years on economic stabilization, energy policy, and healthcare. There's widespread support on those issues. In the meantime, appoint justices who will enact a progressive agenda. But tackling gay marriage head-on will only provide an opportunity for some idiot like Palin to take over in 2012."
I remember when Bill Clinton tried to take on the issue of discrimination against gays in the military...it was too early, and it led to a Republican resurgence in the next election (remember Newt Gingrich, anyone?). Timing is everything. I think the best move would be to refocus on this issue in Obama's second term.
Richard, if you are claiming that Clinton's "Gays in the Military" stance had anything to do with the Republican's resurgence, you need to study history better. That was not a factor. Clinton did not have coattails and that made it hard to get anything done in the 1st two years, which worked against the Ds.
Obama's most important task will be to use his mandate and coattails to accomplish things quickly, so that Rs cannot regain a foothold. This means not being divisive and not trying to push overly ambitious bills through which the Rs will fight tooth and nail.
As to Jarl, understanding who voted for such a proposition in record numbers matters a lot. You need to know who needs to be educated. In the case of AAs, it is especially chilling given that they should understand civil rights more than most. They need to remember that their same religion justified treating them as less than human way back when. A preacher very similar to their own told white churchgoers long ago that mistreatment of blacks was God's will. We look back at that with horror as future generations will look back at this time's treatment of Gay people in horror.
Even though I'm 55, I keep thinking that there will seriously need to be some thinning of the 'older vote' to change course. Of course, I'm pretty sure I'll be listening to Led Zepp when I'm 80 and beyond roaring around in my VW.
Being gay is not genetic, (except for a rare few): what about those who are straight and liked it before they switched and became gay?? It has not been proven scientifically that being gay is genetic! if it has show me the evidence, please.
No on Prop. 8 also uses myths to defend a "no" vote. Equal rights are not denied: the Dosmetic Partnership Act states that if you have a domestic partnership then you get the same benefits/rights as spouses of marriages. I agreed that the general public, including ambulance drivers, hospitals were not educated about what a domestic partnership is and this causes problems for whoever is availing of the rights of a domestic partnership. To solve this problem would mean educating the public of what a "domestic partnership" is. It is lack of awareness of exisiting rights not discrimination as such that is the problem.
Also, how can you have ever illegitimate children?? Together two gays or lesbians cannot procreate. They need donor sperm from a man or donor egg (surrogate mother) in order to have a child that is partly related to them. In could never be related to both parties involved in a same-sex domestic partnership - until technology develops a way to combine the genes of two persons with a third also or some other way. Adoption or children from previous marriages are legit. Besides nobody really cares if you are illegitimate anymore - you are just born to single mother. So the illegitimacy counter-argument is a fallacy!
The same-sex sexual act (for two men) is biologically unnatural and not even hygenic without the invention of condoms. It is a need to desperately fulfill a sexual urge. Just because it is possible to do it more hygenically with condoms doesn't make it more natural. Would more inventions to make it more hygenic make it it more "natural"?? Next people could try any other type of orifice, like the nose or ear. People already have oral sex. Even people/cultures were less advanced the only way they could have families was by procreation or adoption. These are the only natural ways. There was no marriage probably among primitive(cavemen)peoples. Marriage was created in order to protect the children and woman bearing the kids. It showed a commitment to care for their upbringing and not abandon them. Society created marriage for the good of society. Marriage wasn't even about love originally. Marriage is a definition that has been evolving. Love marriages is a recent invention only. Let us ALL think before we set the definition of marriage in stone either by including or excluding same-sex marriages. People in the US, (and around the world) need TIME to think about this. If pressed to support same-sex marriage then most likely they will vote Against it.
People can do whatever they want so long they don't hurt each other or others but that doesn't mean we have to condone it by legalizing it.
Also you are not denied the right to marry. It is just that you don't like the choice. We don't say to a man that you aren't allowed to marry a woman -- that would be discrimination. Vice versa for a woman's case. You are wanting to add something to the current definition of marriage -widening it. Comparing it to slavery is differnt because he/she did not even the right to refuse an available a choice - of being treated as an equal "human".
Perhaps if you ask for "marriage" w/o invalid counter arguments we might consider a No on Prop. 8. Respect us by not giving us silly counter arguments and give us time to think thoughtfully.
Perhaps if you ask for marriage w/o invalid counter arguments we might consider a No on Prop. 8
It's possible that because we have more chemicals in the environment nowadays that the hormone balance of humans is be altered (like frogs that turn female)and causing there to be more gays/lesbians than before. Then eventually this factor must be taken into account.
It is also thought that the environment soemone is brought up in is what causes people to be gay or lesbian then one can see why many persons are against same-sex marriage, because condone same-sex marriage would be like offering the choice to their kids. They think it is also a choice. Many persons experiment with same-sex sex becuase it's another way to try. What about bisexuals: they are then an abnormality? Technically hormones can and do vary in a person and from person to person. Perhaps we are changing "humans" by all the chemicals we have unleashed into the environment and therefore into our bodies.
IGNORANCE:That defines u gay haters Do you ever read? NO..on what bathroom wall did u receive your education? Probably in your preachers...YOu base your bigoted views on opinion i base mine on science..not the book of fairy tales...
GAY IS GENETIC..People have no choice..bisexuals have feelings both ways and can act either way...Heteros like the oppostie sex..Ok theres biology lesson but thats a science so you wouldn't know anything about that because your biblebeltin preacher doesn't know facts...
X marks the spot - possible genetic link to homosexuality found on the X chromosome - 1993 - The Year in Science
Discover, Jan, 1994 by Rosie Mestel
E-MAILPRINTLINK
BACK IN THE OLD DAYS, DEAN HAMER, A MOLECULAR BIOLOGIST AT THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, STUDIED THE METALLOTHIONEIN GENE (IF YOU MUST KNOW, IT'S A GENE FOR A PROtein that mops up toxic metals in your body). But that's not only he appeared on Nightline last summer. Hamer now studies sexual behavior, and he'd found a genetic link to homosexuality--one apparently inherited by sons from their mothers. Freud, it seems, may have been right in ways he never imagined.
The first clue to the mom link came when Hamer studied the families of 76 gay men and found that uncles and male cousions on the mother's side were more likely to be gay than those on the father's side. That suggested a gay gene or genes might be sitting on the X chromosome, which boys get only from their mothers.
Most Popular
5 Super Tips To Get Rid Of Your Public Speaking Fear: How To Overcome Public Speaking Anxiety
Job Interview: What Not To Do
Lethal Job Interview Mistakes
How To Get Things Done: A Guide To Strategic Planning
Five Principles To Improve Your Leadership Skills
Hamer then turned to 40 pairs of gay brothers, sampled their DNA, and scoured their X chromosomes for any regions they had in common. In July his team announced that they'd found one such site--shared by two-thirds of the brothers--at the chromosome's bottom end.
This doesn't necessarily mean that a gay gene is hiding there. Hamer's results must still be verified--many gene-behavior links haven't stood the rest of time. Next, researchers must actually find the gay gene (or genes) in a stretch of DNA that could hold as many as 100 genes; then they must figure out what it does. How, precisely, can a gene make someone gay? One possibility was suggested two years ago when neurobiologist Simon LeVay found that gays and straights differ in a brain region called the hypothalamus, which controls sexual behavior. "In the simplest of all worlds a gay gene could encode a protein that controls the growth of this structure," says Hamer. "That would be cool." Still, such a gene couldn't be the only route to homosexuality, since one-third of the gay brothers didn't share the DNA piece that apparently contains it.
Meanwhile, Hamer and colleagues make no bones about what shouldn't be done with their findigs. They should not be used to discriminate against gays or "to try to assess or alter a person's current or future sexual orientation," they concluded in their Science study. That's a view gay-rights groups heartily endorse. But not surprisingly, some people disagree. Even if there were gay genes, says Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, "we wouldn't condone homosexuality. We'd still need to correct it."
Yet studies like Hamer's may also help turn public opinion around. A recent New York Times poll found that people who believe homosexuality is inborn are more sympathetic to gay issues than those who think's it's life-style choice.
"This work has an impact on society," Hamer says. "There's intense public interest. I was not deluged by calls when we discovered the regulator of the metallothionein gene."
COPYRIGHT 1994 Discover
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm
Study: Genetic Link Between Homosexuality and Siblings' Number of Sexual Partners
A new study indicates that a person's homosexuality may be genetically linked to the number of sexual partners his or her heterosexual siblings have. The soon-to-be-published paper by the Queensland Institute of Medical Research in Brisbane, Australia, may explain how a "gay gene" can survive over time when gay people can't biologically reproduce, the Economist reports.
According to the magazine, Brendan Zietsch and his fellow researchers have found that gay people tend to have siblings with more sexual partners than average. If that's the case, a gay person's brothers or sisters may be passing on genes associated with both homosexuality and fecundity -- and thus besting natural selection.
The Zietsch study, to be published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, relied on a sample of 4,904 twins, not all of them identical, the Economist reports.
Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture in AllPsych Journal
In simplification, if the person's genetic code is heterozygotic (one homosexual gene ... of heterozygosity), this again links homosexuality to X-linkage. ...
allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html - 62k - Cached - Similar pages
Dowling College: ASC 128: Homosexuality and Genetics
Several genetic studies have been done that appears to genetically link homosexuality. Pillard and Bailey did a study on twins and homosexuals. ...
www.dowling.edu/faculty/Perring/wheelan.htm - 19k
NOW I CAN PUT UP HUNDREDS OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES TO PROVE ITS GENETIC>>>WHERE AS YOUR PROOF IS YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEF>>> WHICH ONE DO YOU THINK A LOGICAL PERSON WILL BELIEVE IS THe REASON SOMEONE IS GAY>>>
SO SHUT YOUR IGNORANT MOUTHS AND START READING SCIENTIFIC FACTS INSTEAD OF WHAT YOUR CHURCH TELLS YOU
EXCUSE ME: Looks like you are prejudiced (holding a view that is pre-formed and not based on fact)-YOU ASSUME that I believe my "biblebeltin preacher" and all they say, when I don't even belong to any religion or believe any preacher. I base my views on facts or as many as I have. That fact that iI am even responding on this website should have given you a clue that I may be open-minded enoough to listen to what others say. Right now it's mostly OPINION/BELIEF VS. OPINION/BELIEF. Most persons don't have any idea about the scientific literature available about gays. Neither do I because you guys (those who supprt NO on 8) keep it secret?? Why? People might change their mind if they knew the facts. If you guys were to base you arguments more on FACTS than EMOTION you would have perhaps gotten more people to support NO on 8. At any rate most likely this issue will resolve when the next generation grows up as the younger generation is more open to gays as they around them more and see their lifestyle as another choice.
P.S: As a matter of fact I do have a few gay friends.
Forgot to say: Thanks for info, finally.
And please stop assuming (it makes an ASS of U and ME).
Hot Lezbos in Action Video Blog responds to homophobia in POC communities and racism in queer community:
http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=46733313
it's really disturbing to see the level of homophobia and racism increase at an alarming rate due to the fact that this issue continues to be framed as one between gay white men and straight black people.... please view, comment, and share our perspective on the video blog below:
http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=46733313
here's the google link too:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8067173759842565597
I think there is a very strong case for the Cali Sup Ct to overturn Prop 8 since it violates the equal protection clause, the principle of separation of powers and the court's role in a constitutional democracy. Such a radical change cannot be done through the initiative process but requires to go through the stricter revision process. Prop 8 may well be found unconstitutional and declared null and void.
Nate, who wants to remain loyal to Obama and not blame him for Prop 8, ignores the mass of polling data which indicates that Black and Latinos do indeed tend to disapprove of homosexuality. The senior citizen effect is definitely bigger, but there's no denying that gays have an image problem among racial minorities.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信,
^^ very nice
徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社
外遇外遇