Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Silver Lining for California's Gay Marriage Ban

By odano in Op-Ed
Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:29:43 PM EST
Tags: California, Election 2008, Culture War, Gay Marriage, Prop 8, Prop 22 (all tags)

On election day, Californians narrowly approved Proposition 8, an initiative to amend the state constitution to include "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid." Undoubtedly this vote was a setback for gay rights throughout the country, but upon closer inspection there is a lot of silver lining in the results.



  • "We trust that this decision will be respected by all Californians."

  • "Now that the people of California have decided this issue, we hope there can be a healing among all and a continued respect for the diverse views that have been expressed during this campaign."

  • "California's vote in favor of traditional marriage should give the silent majority comfort that they do have a voice and can and should stand up for this precious institution in legislatures throughout the world."

Snippets From: Statement on Proposition 8 Passing by Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com

The tone of this statement is evident from the above snippets. Ron Prentice is scared. Normally when a law is passed, one doesn't have to "trust" people will respect it. Normally when a proposition passes with over 50% of the vote, one doesn't at the same time implore the "silent majority" to be louder.

Why is he scared? In 2000 there was a similar initiative on the ballot, Proposition 22, which passed convincingly with 61.4% of the vote. Not even a decade later, the opponents of gay marriage spent 35 million dollars and could only muster 52.5% of the vote.

Many people outside of California mistakenly consider it to be the most liberal place in America, home of San Francisco elites and Hollywood liberals. But California was a solidly conservative state as recently as 20 years ago, voting Republican until Clinton won it in 1992. Looking at a breakdown of the Proposition 8 results you can see the even big cities like Los Angeles and San Diego voted "Yes" on Proposition 8; it wasn't just rural areas. While it is true cities like San Francisco and Oakland voted overwhelmingly against the ban, their populations combined cannot even match the population of San Diego (which itself is not even one third the size of Los Angeles), and their vote margins were canceled out by the equally conservative areas like like Fresno and Orange County.

However there is one demographic in California that voted solidly in opposition of Proposition 8, and the silver lining in this election: The youth vote. According to exit polls, voters aged 18-29 voted 61% in opposition of Proposition 8. On the other end of the spectrum, voters aged 65+ were the largest supporters of Proposition 8, voting 61% in favor of it.

Lets compare that to the exit polls from Proposition 22 in the year 2000:

Voter Age % of voters Support of Ban
2008 2000 Delta 2008 2000 Delta
18-29 20 5 +15 39 42 -3
30-44 28 61 -33 55 56 -1
45-64 36 16 +20 54 63 -9
65+ 15 18 -3 61 68 -7

In these numbers there are a lot of hopeful signs. The most important is that support for a gay marriage ban is down in all age groups! In fact the largest increase in voters sympathetic to gay marriage was voters above the age of 45. Another important trend is the large increase in the youth vote. Gay marriage is an issue people in the younger generation care about, and this election was a telling example of it. Given the 2000 numbers it probably was a little optimistic to think that California would have opposed this measure only eight years after supporting a similar one with over 60% of the vote. Institutional change like this is generational, and these exit polls certainly show this data. Voters under the age of 30 are strongly pro gay marriage, while those above the age of 30 are against it.

However it doesn't take a mathematician to see what is going to happen in the near future. Unless there is any reason to believe that young voters will stop supporting gay marriage as they age, the numbers paint a bleak picture for the "silent majority." Given that the polling from this years election shows that every age demographic is growing more tolerant of gay marriage, we can safely assume the trends will continue to trickle up the various age groups. This is the double edged sword of direct democracy: it works much faster than the old fashioned way. Just as quickly as the current majority can pass this proposition, the future majority can dissolve it away. Don't be fooled by the headlines proclaiming the end of the culture war. California lost this battle, but the numbers show victory is coming.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Propositio n 8
o Statement on Proposition 8 Passing by Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com
o Propositio n 22
o Los Angeles
o San Diego
o San Francisco
o Oakland
o population s
o Fresno
o Orange County
o exit polls
o exit polls from Proposition 22 in the year 2000
o Also by odano


Display: Sort:
The Silver Lining for California's Gay Marriage Ban | 88 comments (73 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden)
attention yes voters (2.70 / 10) (#6)
by balsamic vinigga on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:32:51 AM EST

you guys are fucking idiots...  not in your religious and/or bigoted beliefs.. I really don't give a fuck if you're all closeted gay homophobes smoking pole in men's rooms. I don't care if you'd spit on matthew ship's grave.

What i do care about is that you're prolonging the inevitable and costing the state millions and millions of dollars in process.

You think the fags and their homoerotic mayor gavin newsome are just going to go "oh lol you're right.. ok ok we'll stick to civil unions." ???????????

Hell no! they already have 3 more fucking lawsuits ready to go before the dust has even settled.

Here's an idea: don't give a shit what the state does!

You guys can keep hating or whatever it is you think you do outside of whatever the hell the state does! You think the state has the power to make all you guys think of gay partnerships as equal? How or why do you give them that much power?

Nothing the state can say or do will give them true equality, only a generation change or two is going to do that.

meanwhile our teachers are underpaid and we can't balance our budget and you wanna throw more cash onto the state's definition of a fucking word?!

---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!

+1FP for the comment. (none / 0) (#26)
by xC0000005 on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 06:53:56 PM EST



Voice of the Hive - Beekeeping and Bees for those who don't
[ Parent ]
LOL gay marriage (3.00 / 3) (#63)
by Harry B Otch on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 10:52:55 PM EST

Two men can't get married to each other; if they did, then which one of them would come downstairs to breakfast and say "I think you were a bit too hard on the Beaver last night"?

-----
Bathrooms can be pretty easy... Believe me, I know. - rusty
[ Parent ]

the one who goes by the pet name ''beaver'' ??? $ (none / 0) (#65)
by balsamic vinigga on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 11:07:14 PM EST



---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!
[ Parent ]
SOME OF US ARE PROVOCATEURS (none / 1) (#71)
by Delirium on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:24:16 PM EST

actually I'm not registered to vote in California, but if I were, this might be a good outcome!

in arguing that this outcome might backfire on cultural conservatives and that therefore they're making a mistake, a no-on-8 campaigner I know argued that "its passage may prove more damaging to both religious groups and marriage itself".

a proposition that can damage both religious groups and marriage itself in one fell swoop? fuckin' yes to that.

[ Parent ]

+1 FP, will contribute to death of k5 (2.00 / 2) (#8)
by GrubbyBeardedHermit on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:39:38 AM EST


GBH

Go suck a dick, queer boy. (none / 1) (#10)
by Strom Thurmond on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:42:08 AM EST


VEGETARIAN: An Indian word meaning "lousy hunter"

CA FAILS IT (2.75 / 8) (#11)
by Peahippo on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:15:34 AM EST

"Now that the people of California have decided this issue, we hope there can be a healing among all and a continued respect for the diverse views that have been expressed during this campaign."

How can there be a "healing" when a majority of Californians just told the minority there that they can't have full civil rights? People have the right to marry. PERIOD. It's as fully invested as any other civil right, like the right to vote, the right to speak, and the right to travel.

Yet another injustice has happened in CA. It's called HOMOPHOBIA. If the voters had passed a law against having Blacks marry, you'd be upset. But since they only targeted the fags, apparently you're FINE with it.


Most of the rights you mentioned (none / 1) (#28)
by xC0000005 on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 06:57:34 PM EST

have limits placed by society upon them. Might not be the best examples. For instance, you can lose the right to vote, or even never have it. You don't have free speech everywhere anymore, and travel is dependent entirely upon which method and how invasive a prodding you are willing to submit to.

Voice of the Hive - Beekeeping and Bees for those who don't
[ Parent ]
More things to thank the Republican fascisti for $ (none / 1) (#30)
by Nimey on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:32:28 PM EST


--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]
i feel so dirty 3'ing a peahippo comment [nt] (none / 0) (#46)
by Empedocles on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 05:02:36 PM EST



---
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
'Till touch down brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home

[ Parent ]
What the Fuck (2.00 / 2) (#13)
by Brogdel on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:50:12 AM EST

Why are faggots so upset because the government won't recognize them as married? Go to a church that likes homosexuals, get married and be happy.

That's not the problem. (3.00 / 7) (#15)
by Psycho Dave on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 12:32:38 PM EST

The problem is homosexual couples are not afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. Things such as power of attorney, transfer of property, adoption and such.

Same sex couples can have most of these things done, but have to spend a lot of money in legal fees to do so. A heterosexual couple just needs to spend fifteen dollars at the courthouse to get all these same things. And even with the legal contracts drawn up, those rights can still be contested.


[ Parent ]

A civil union doesn't get them the same rights? (none / 0) (#16)
by QuantumFoam on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 01:55:06 PM EST


- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

civil unions not necessarily respected by the fed (none / 1) (#22)
by rhiannon on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 03:53:30 PM EST

and some people want to get married, not civil unioned.

-----------------------------------------
I continued to rebuff the advances... so many advances... of so many attractive women. -MC
[ Parent ]
Ah (none / 0) (#23)
by QuantumFoam on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 04:33:43 PM EST

well the Feds should respect it, but if gay people want to get married rather than civil-unioned, maybe they should try not being gay. Or getting one of the two to have a sex change operation.

Seriously. Biologically, "male" and "female" aren't really boolean descriptors. If two gay dudes want to get married, one can start the hormone treatment, marry the other, then go off it. Surely becoming a female to get married and reverting back to being a male would be a valid circumvention strategy.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure thats the point (3.00 / 2) (#24)
by eavier on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 04:53:33 PM EST

Having one of the partners change sex to circumvent a law is economically and psychologically a little over the top.

Also, once you've made the time consuming switch, I'm unsure whether its easy to just hormone revert back to been your original sex. Or does a person just stop taking the sex meds and the body naturally switches back to its default?

I'd check but I'm at work and don't want to worry my co-workers. If they pop their head in my office and see my screen littered with sex change how-to's there will be talk.

Whatever you do, don't take it into your house. It's probably full of Greeks. - Vampire Zombie Abu Musab al Zarqawi

Ufology Doktor in da house

[ Parent ]

Well, as I understand it... (1.50 / 2) (#25)
by QuantumFoam on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 05:01:41 PM EST

I think sex-changees usually get some sort of psychological counseling and then undergo hormone therapy before anything gets sliced off or added.

You could go to the doctor, get the estrogen pills, and pop one. Then you go get gay-hitched and throw away the pills. At the time you got married, you were somewhere in the continuum between the sexes.

Look, I had to go to a doctor and claim weed would help my asthma in order to get a California MMJ prescription. If people want to suck each other's cocks as husband and husband, why shouldn't they have to work through similarly pointless loopholes?

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!
[ Parent ]

Just let 'em get married. Damn. (3.00 / 3) (#41)
by Brogdel on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:07:00 AM EST

I'm sure it's hard enough going through life sucking dicks and letting guys fuck you in the ass, at least the government could let you get married.

[ Parent ]
sex is binary, gender is not (none / 1) (#32)
by balsamic vinigga on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:38:07 PM EST

it's completely fucking ridiculous that if you follow one set of gender alteration rituals you're ok to get married and if you want to follow your own ritual, like, for example, being gay, it's a deal breaker...


---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!
[ Parent ]
actually sex isn't really binary either (nt) (none / 0) (#73)
by Delirium on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:28:42 PM EST



[ Parent ]
depends how you look at it (none / 0) (#74)
by balsamic vinigga on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:40:09 PM EST

chromosomally it's still binary isn't it?  even if you have fucked up hormones and both sets of junk.. either you're XX or XY....  But even then it's a so rare that clearly sex is binary for the vast majority of people.

---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!
[ Parent ]
well I suppose so (none / 0) (#75)
by Delirium on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:52:34 PM EST

There are XXY and XYY, and they do run into quite a few problems because of how strongly society assumes sex is binary—usually doctors try to fit them into whichever of XY or XX seems "closer", with mixed success. But yes, they're quite rare.

I don't tend to think of sex purely chromosomally though, but as something more like "the component of male/femaleness that is primarily determined by genotype". This seems to usually be defined in practice by which external genitalia the person in question possesses, but biological sex, as I view it, also involves a number of secondary sexual characteristics, many mediated by hormone expression (especially its expression during youth). And yes, in the majority of cases again, these all correlate well enough that most people are either of the "typical" male sex or the "typical" female sex, plus or minus a standard deviation or two. But the atypical cases at this level of consideration are considerably more common than XXY and XYY are.

Actually, for a number of reasons such as these, I don't really believe in the sex/gender distinction at all. (I don't agree with the rigid conservative view that "men are men and women are women" either, but the two-level view isn't much more accurate.)

[ Parent ]

to generalize on the last comment (none / 0) (#76)
by Delirium on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:04:20 PM EST

Actually I don't really believe in the nature/nurture distinction at all, or genetically determined vs. socially constructed, in the majority of situations. Social factors of human behavior imo are constrained and strongly influenced by genetics, but at the same time a large proportion of gene expression is mediated and can be overturned by environmental factors, including social ones. Sometimes particular outcomes or traits can be cleanly attributed to one or the other, but not usually.

[ Parent ]
yeah i don't know dude that's kind of a cop out (none / 0) (#77)
by balsamic vinigga on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:38:14 PM EST

of course biology effects sociology and vice versa...  but when describing behaviors it's pretty clear that you were nurtured into speaking english rather than chinese, though you obviously are biologically wired for language. So it's frankly intellectually dishonest to say you draw no distinction at all. Certainly there's a lot of gray area where we're not sure what role biology plays and what role culture plays...  but the distinction is pretty evident and well understood..  so you kind of sound like a religious zealot when you bury your head in the sand and say there's no distinction at all.

---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!
[ Parent ]
sure, some are more attributable to one (none / 0) (#78)
by Delirium on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 03:51:27 PM EST

If I were to attribute gender though, I'd have to agree more with the conservative view that it's mainly attributable to sex, though. Sure, you can change that with hormone therapy, and what we described as "gender" is a bell curve so how close to the stereotypical "male" or "female" any person is is variable (and the bell curves overlap), but there isn't some distinct social notion of gender that is magically unrelated and a free individual choice.

[ Parent ]
meh (none / 0) (#79)
by balsamic vinigga on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:02:10 PM EST

there's a lot of behaviors ascribed to gender that are complete and total social constructions. I mean a whole shit-ton. So much so that the prevailing experts would certainly disagree with your assertion that it's mainly attributable to sex.

Unless you're talking about physical rather than behavioral characteristics? Then you'd certainly be right...  I hope that's what you're talking about at least.

---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!
[ Parent ]

a lot of the prevailing experts seem to reconsider (none / 0) (#80)
by Delirium on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:09:59 PM EST

In my field (computer science) over the past ten years, the expert opinion seems to have done nearly a complete 180—previously the prevailing view was that the gender disparity was primarily socially constructed, due to lack of encouragement and early childhood education in computers/technology for young girls vs. young boys, social pressures away from computer science as a field, etc. Therefore the proper progressive reform was to encourage more early childhood education, ensure educational environments are free of bias (overt and otherwise), etc. But more recently a common view, probably at this point the majority one, is that a large proportion of the disparity can be attributed to computer science curricula being "inherently" male-oriented, and should be reformed by introducing things more typically of interest to women. One of the main reforms this has introduced is a bigger focus on applications over theory, or at least greater mention of potential applications when introducing theory, due to a view that fiddling with symbols for their own sake is an "inherently male" interest, whereas women will be more attracted to the field if fiddling with the symbols is more widely contextualized.

Now to me, that actually seems rather anti-feminist, but I'd say if you read papers from progressives interested in reforming computer science curricula, it's the tone of the dominant proposals. There are similar things in industry areas like videogames, where gender differences are taken as inherent (males like violence, etc.), and so rather than the old proposal that we reduce gender disparity via early education, the new proposal is to embrace and accommodate it by making more female-inclusive games that are less "inherently male oriented".

[ Parent ]

i don't know i mean (none / 0) (#81)
by balsamic vinigga on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:28:15 PM EST

the power of culture is extremely strong man...  boys liking violence may have a biological basis...  or it could be the way people treated you when you were fucking 3 years old. Girls are spoken to softly and taught to be nurturing.. and are often discouraged from being tomboys and rough-housing... and the approval of you parents and other role models are extremely important to you...  boys will be boys... and are encouraged to wrastle around etc.

So then by the time you're 8 or 9 years old boys show a stronger interest in martial arts and violent videogames, sure...  and girls show a stronger interest in dance, etc.

Then it flows through to adulthood. Maybe men have more of an aptitude for abstract reasoning...  but also abstract reasoning is just hard... and it's only a few men who are naturally gifted at it.. and others hone their talent by trying really really hard, becaue there's a lot of pressure on them to.  Traditionally there's been less pressure on girls to try really hard. And yet still history shows us that there've been many women who were so naturally gifted that they didn't even need cultural encouragement and prevailed in the face of practically insurmountable discouragement. Take Emmy Noether as a good example. She pioneered in the field of abstract algebra.

You're telling me that a halfhearted beaurocratic attempt in public gradeschool can undo all this social construction enough to even the playing field? Yeah a 6th grade girl seeing a poster on the wall for an inadequately funded women in science and engineering program is enough to make us all invoke the old bioreductivist myths that men have a greater aptitude for abstract reasoning? That's absurd, man.

---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!
[ Parent ]

is that really the problem? (none / 0) (#72)
by Delirium on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:27:42 PM EST

My impression of the debate is that this is not what's driving either the pro- or anti- sides. Nobody really cares about the relatively boring legal differences between civil partnerships and marriage; certainly not to extent of spending millions of dollars on campaigns and attending protests either way. No, this is about symbolism: whether the government sides with the cultural conservatives in saying "yes, there really is a difference between the two", or sides with the cultural liberals in saying "yes, these are really equivalent relationships".

[ Parent ]
We're just trying to keep it out for a generation (none / 0) (#14)
by GhostOfTiber on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 12:08:13 PM EST

After the queer generation fails to reproduce, the Gay Gene will die out and we'll return to normal.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne

right (3.00 / 6) (#21)
by khallow on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 02:29:18 PM EST

Do you think some gay cosmic ray hit California? Maybe it was a glowing pink meteorite landing in San Francisco?

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Richard Simmons is back in SF?$ (none / 0) (#27)
by xC0000005 on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 06:55:15 PM EST



Voice of the Hive - Beekeeping and Bees for those who don't
[ Parent ]
You are doing it wrong. (3.00 / 4) (#40)
by sholden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:01:09 AM EST

If you let them marry each other they will fail to reproduce, for obvious reasons.

If you do not allow them to marry each other, they will instead pretend not to be gay so they can make their parent's happy and get married. This may result in an accidental child with the Gay Gene.

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
Doesn't work. (none / 0) (#42)
by claes on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:14:08 PM EST

The Catholic Church has been trying to breed out the gay gene for 2000 years. No luck at all. No, wait, they've been trying to breed out the "I fervently believe in God" gene. Some success there, I guess.

[ Parent ]
I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church (none / 0) (#44)
by sholden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:36:50 PM EST

does not allow gay marriage.

So that method is proven to fail then, most likely for the reasons I mentioned...

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
From the way it's going (none / 0) (#49)
by ksandstr on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:21:47 AM EST

I'd have thought they were trying to breed the gay gene in.

Fin.
[ Parent ]
I voted against it (2.75 / 4) (#17)
by QuantumFoam on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 01:56:34 PM EST

but mostly because it doesn't seem that its the government's job to legislate morality. What's the big deal anyway? If I was gay and in California, I'd be fucking a different dude every night.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!

wasteful issues (2.75 / 4) (#20)
by loteck on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 02:22:28 PM EST

CA voters will be thrilled to find out they spent almost $100m fighting about a ballot measure that wont stand on its feet. you cant strip basic rights away from people with an constitutional amendment, you'd need 2/3 of congress to approve a constitutional revision to do that.

at least thats what the multiple lawsuits already filed in the state say, and I'd have to agree.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

Where in the Federal Constitution (none / 0) (#35)
by curien on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:48:40 PM EST

does it say that marriage is a fundamental right? Hell, where does it even mention marriage?

In California, a ballot measure can change the state constitution all by itself.

--
Murder your babies. -- R Mutt
[ Parent ]

see loving v. virginia (3.00 / 3) (#43)
by loteck on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:35:20 PM EST

federal and state courts have already established that marriage is a basic civil right, and that you fucking fail at life. californians can amend their constitution with a 51% vote, but they cannot deny basic rights to all citizens, no matter how retardedly fascist their religion might command them to be.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]
hasn't been litigated, though (none / 0) (#50)
by Delirium on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:36:22 AM EST

The gay-marriage legalization earlier this year was under a CA-state-constitution rationale, not relying on the federal constitution. That rationale has now been overturned by amending the CA state constitution.

As you point out, it might still be required by the federal constitution, in which case gay marriage would automatically become legal in all 50 states. However, no federal court has ruled in that manner; all the rulings in favor of gay marriage anywhere in the country that I'm aware of have been exclusively on state-law grounds.

[ Parent ]

there's plenty of precedent (none / 0) (#53)
by loteck on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:54:27 PM EST

in both state and federal courts with interracial marriage cases. legally speaking, this issue is a big loser for the folks who dont like the gays. they are forcing this to a federal issue and all signs point to fail, based on prior SCOTUS decisions about marriage. we'll see if Thomas forgets that his race had to fight a civil rights battle to get recognized as having equal rights like the california black community did when they voted in prop 8.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]
could go both ways (none / 0) (#54)
by Delirium on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:06:54 PM EST

I don't think either side has wanted to litigate this in federal courts for various reasons. The pro-same-sex-marriage side is worried in particular about a larger backlash if they won a court case that legalized gay marriage legal in places like Nebraska and Arkansas—which is one reason they've been pursuing their state-by-state strategy, in comparatively friendly places like Massachusetts and California, which seems less threatening to the "heartland" folks since it only involves states they don't live in.

[ Parent ]
too much credit (none / 0) (#55)
by loteck on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:23:28 PM EST

you hint at some kind of nationally organized movement of the gays that are meeting at their headquarters in san francisco and twisting their metrosexual mustaches worrying about national and regional issues. no such thing exists, which is why they are losing big in places like CA, AZ and FL. at this point these people are disorganized and have no political power or ground force. the individuals do not care about "backlash" or state government or any of this bullshit, it is simply a bald-faced civil rights issue that this country should be ashamed to be having. if SCOTUS was to uphold their prior statements that marriage is a basic civil right, i see no legal way that this issue cannot end in federal recognition of gay marriage. legal precedent is also already set across the pond in many other democracies, which SCOTUS will certainly recognize.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about (none / 1) (#58)
by curien on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:28:15 PM EST

The Loving decision was based on a 14th Am ruling that treating marriage differently for different races failed the equal protection clause. It has nothing to do with marriage being a civil right.

As I mentioned earlier, there's a strong argument for applying 14th Am protection to homosexual marriages. But SCOTUS has an equally strong history of rejecting that argument.

--
Murder your babies. -- R Mutt
[ Parent ]

read the decision (none / 0) (#64)
by loteck on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 10:56:34 PM EST

it sites marriage as a basic civil right and provides the appropriate references to prior case law. you can argue semantics all you want, i'm not saying i know exactly which part of the law the gay marriage ban is going to find itself impaled upon (the 14th is as good of a guess as any if it goes federal), but it most definitely will find itself there.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]
Maybe you should read it (none / 0) (#68)
by curien on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:49:05 AM EST

Loving doesn't actually state that marriage is a civil right. It refers to an earlier decision about forced sterilization of criminals, Skinner v. Oklahoma: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

It clearly assumes that marriage is a part of the reproductive process. SCOTUS could easily say that a class of marriages with no possibility for reproduction is not so protected.

Further, in defining race as a distinction worthy of protection by the 14 Am, Loving refers to Hirabayashi v US, which states that distinctions "due to ancestry alone" qualify. As far as I know, there is no precedent for applying the equal protection clause to homosexuals.

That being said, Loving does call it a "vital personnal right," whatever that means.

On a little further research, Romer v. Evans did find that EP applied to homosexuals. It was in 1995, with a slightly more liberal court: it was 6-3 then, and a similar vote might go 5-4 now. OTOH, Romer was dealing with a much less controversial issue than marriage, so maybe one of the more liberal justices might not have the guts to rule consistently.

--
Murder your babies. -- R Mutt
[ Parent ]

are we reading the same decision? (none / 1) (#69)
by loteck on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 01:55:40 PM EST

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man', fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]
What will happen to the Republicans once (none / 0) (#33)
by greengrass on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:59:01 PM EST

they can't put "get out the vote" amendments on the ballots?

There are still plenty of states (none / 0) (#39)
by Nimey on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:57:47 PM EST

where abortion is legal.  Expect that to be the big hot-button issue in 2010 or 2012 to get the yokels voting.

I hope that California passes a referendum in just a few years to abolish Prop 8.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

[ Parent ]

It was blacks that determined Prop 8 (none / 0) (#52)
by Liar on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:13:44 PM EST

They voted overwhelmingly for the bill. If they had voted in the same ratio as whites, the proposition would have failed.

California is a state where there is no racial majority. It's easy to mistake this as a religious/Republican issue, but minorities overwhelmingly reject gay marriage, whether it's Latino, Black, and even Asian. So, this is a bit more complex than just Republican politics. It could even be argued that Prop 8 encouraged more votes for Obama as minorities had two reasons to go to the polls.


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
a bit oversimplified (none / 0) (#56)
by Delirium on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:11:43 PM EST

When something passes 52-48, any 2% of the people "determined" the outcome. A mere 7% of the electorate consisted of blacks who voted yes on Proposition 8; 45% was a non-black yes vote. I don't see why it makes sense to specifically single out "blacks" as the one that should have shifted.

Why not blame, say, old people? If people 65-and-up had voted in the same proportion as people under 65, it wouldn't have passed. Or how about blaming uneducated redneck whites? If they had voted in the same proportion as educated whites, it would've failed by a huge margin—uneducated whites are a much larger proportion of the state (and of the yes-on-8 vote) than blacks. Or how about Christians? If they had voted in the same proportion as non-Christians, it would've failed by a double-digit spread. Or men? If they had voted in the same proportion as women, it would've failed solidly as well. Etc.

[ Parent ]

Under normal voting patterns (none / 0) (#59)
by Liar on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 01:49:25 PM EST

This would have failed. There was a particular aberration though in California voting: blacks turned out in record numbers.


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
not sure it would've failed (none / 0) (#60)
by Delirium on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 07:21:57 PM EST

As compared to Kerry, Obama's candidacy had a number of effects on turnout, some of which favored Prop 8 and some of which didn't. Female voters were a bigger share this year (54% versus 51%), which favored the no-on-8 side. As you point out, black voters were a bigger share (10% versus 6%), which favored the yes-on-8 side. The college-grad-or-postgrad vote was up (49% versus 46%), which favored the no-on-8 side. The conservative vote was up (30% versus 28%), which favored the yes-on-8 side. I'd have to run the numbers to back out all the demographic shifts and make some estimate of what the result would've looked like with 2004-electorate demographics, but I'm guessing it wouldn't have been that much different.

[ Parent ]
and actually (none / 1) (#61)
by Delirium on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 07:24:28 PM EST

Even if we look only at the increase in black turnout, it wouldn't have failed. If we remove that extra 4% of black voters, 70% of which voted yes, that would reduce the "yes" votes by 2.8% of the total electorate. Since the margin was 4%, that's not enough (a 2% shift from yes to no is enough to flip a 4% margin, but a 2.8% shift from yes to non-vote isn't).

[ Parent ]
somewhat (none / 0) (#62)
by Liar on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 09:56:27 PM EST

There's going to be some analysis of these numbers over the next months and while I'll admit that I probably made my statement stronger than I intended, this is one of those things that it could go either way.

I can't find my original numbers which analyzed it, but this one does a fairly good job breaking it down. While ultimately, it determines that blacks probably didn't change the outcome of the vote, it concedes that under some assumptions that it does.


I admit I'm a Liar. That's why you can trust me.
[ Parent ]
and actually, not correct on Latino/Asian (none / 1) (#57)
by Delirium on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:13:53 PM EST

Asians voted 50/50 on it, and Latinos voted 52-48 in favor, neither of which is an "overwhelming rejection".

The far bigger spreads are the religious vs. non-religious, and Republicans versus non-Republicans, with a secondary effect being age. The whites vs. minorities voting differential is much smaller.

[ Parent ]

not too surprising demographics (3.00 / 6) (#38)
by Delirium on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:23:57 PM EST

People don't normally choose their political views from some sort of philosophical first principles, but in relation to the prevailing climate. The prevailing climate for the elderly is one where, as little as a few decades ago, it was illegal to have gay sex. Even progressives of the 1950s—the sorts of radical liberal activists who thought all sodomy laws should be outright abolished (not just left unenforced or reduced to minor offenses)—can suddenly find themselves on the conservative side of the spectrum as society's views shift faster than they can keep up with. Meanwhile, young people have grown up in a climate where it was taken for granted that having gay sex was perfectly legal, so they start from a different perception of where the center is.

not that long ago (none / 1) (#66)
by mlc on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 12:50:01 AM EST

Sodomy laws in the United States were not overturned until 2003.

--
So the Berne Convention is the ultimate arbiter of truth and morality. Is this like Catholicism? -- Eight Star
[ Parent ]

that was the very end (3.00 / 2) (#67)
by Delirium on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:37:02 AM EST

They were overturned, either legislatively or judicially, beginning in the 1950s, with most states completing the process by the 1970s. The 2003 decision was only the definitive nail in the coffin of the last holdouts, which had themselves lapsed almost entirely into disuse by that point anyway.

So most people born in the 1970s or later lived in a climate where it was assumed that there was nothing illegal about gay sex. Indeed, the handful of successful prosecutions since that era were almost all due to people accidentally incriminating themselves when in court on a different crime because they didn't even realize it was still technical illegal (and many of those prosecutions were for heterosexual oral sex). Its most common use in the post-1950s era was as a backup crime if there wasn't enough evidence of nonconsensuality to convict a defendant of rape—if they made the mistake of admitting engaging in oral sex with a woman but claimed it was consensual, they could still be convicted of sodomy.

[ Parent ]

Hello stone age (none / 0) (#45)
by the77x42 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:45:33 PM EST

As much as I find homosexuality revolting and the thought of it makes me nauseous, so does the thought of my parents having sex and hairy vaginas. I don't expect a ban on what I think is disgusting, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't trust the fucking government to do it.


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

can this be constitutional? (none / 0) (#47)
by danny on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:32:04 PM EST

Could a bare majority vote redefine "vote" as something cast by a white person?  If not, how can a bare majority referendum redefine "marriage" so as to exclude some couples?

Danny.
[900 book reviews and other stuff]

see my comment earlier in thread $ (none / 0) (#48)
by loteck on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 08:20:34 PM EST


--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]
Why on earth, (none / 1) (#51)
by daani on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 10:58:45 AM EST

are these "protect marriage" fuckers not in the slightest bit worried about divorce rates?

I guess it is just too much of a leap to suggest that a chaps first two marriages, or the fourth to a trophy bride, should make anybody suggest that ones third trip up the isle is anything other than a sacred lifelong commitment made between a man, woman and God.

For fucks sake, there was a divorcee running for president this time around and it didn't even get a mention!

many are (none / 0) (#70)
by Delirium on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:19:17 PM EST

Two of the most visible anti-gay-marriage religious groups, Mormons and Catholics, are vehemently anti-divorce. Of course, in practice they don't seem very good at avoiding it, as their divorce rates aren't really any lower than average.

[ Parent ]
Yes, as you say, (none / 1) (#83)
by daani on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 11:42:53 PM EST

they are only nominally "against" it. But I can't help but notice that they don't go bananas trying to prevent it with constitutional amendments.

[ Parent ]
well, I think they recognize the fight is lost (none / 1) (#84)
by Delirium on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:01:24 AM EST

When it was an issue still in dispute, as gay marriage is currently, they put forth considerable lobbying effort. For example, they were big opponents of the move in the 1970s to no-fault divorce, and the church's strength in New York is one of the main reasons New York is the only U.S. state that has yet to pass a no-fault divorce statute. And some folks are even still pursuing legal challenges now and then.

[ Parent ]
What the fuck (none / 1) (#82)
by QuantumFoam on Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 12:49:06 AM EST

No "sodomy" tag?

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!

Democracy versus Individual Rights (none / 1) (#85)
by redelm on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:46:45 AM EST

While this is a bit of a tempest-in-a-teapot (not to those involved, but numerically few are), it brings up a much larger issue of whether democracy should be allowed to limit/dictate human rights.

An often-despised minority (GLBT) is requesting a right entirely analogous to those enjoyed by the majority. The courts have found their claim valid. The people disagree. Should the people have the right to impose their view? The brilliance of the US Consititution is to limit government, government from all sources.



do whatever the fuck you want (none / 0) (#86)
by totmacher on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 05:25:55 PM EST

just understand that you're a minority, don't get all up in my face about gay rights and don't fag up the scenery

-- I'll sum it up for yo: You = Douche bag ~ Butthurtapotamus
This real silver lining is this... (none / 1) (#87)
by Jizzbug on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 02:37:06 PM EST

When homosexuals get their right to marry, perhaps the Mormons will get their long-lost right to plural marriage.

Notice that these amendments do not define marriage as "between one man and one woman", they define a valid marriage as "between a man and a woman" (if they did the Mormons would not have supported them), and there is no condition in these amendments that either the man or the woman cannot contract more than one valid marriage (however, there are historical state bigamy laws and federal anti-polygamy laws which prevent this, but these prohibitions are not constitutional laws).

Missouri was one of the first states to pass such a constitutional amendment, it reads:

Section 33. That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.

California's amendment reads:

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

So, for the Mormons, now it's just a matter of repealing the anti-polygamy laws so people can again enter into multiple valid marriages as defined by these amendments.

Personally, I think these amendments are B.S.  These amendments prove that our constitutions no longer have the power to protect the rights and pursuits of everyone (including gays and polygamists).

I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves.
 -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None

Shouldn't have been necessary. (none / 0) (#88)
by The Real Lord Kano on Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 01:41:39 AM EST

There is no such thing as a "gay marriage".
It doesn't exist. They may as well have passed a law declaring that Santa Claus doesn't really exist.

LK

The Silver Lining for California's Gay Marriage Ban | 88 comments (73 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!