Michael Thomas wrote: > Is the sign that's going up as I type on our balcony.
> It's personal now.
While you're at it: apparently African-Americans and Latinos voted heavily for Prop 8, too (one would think that history culminating with Loving v. Virginia would provide some perspective...as if):
Ken Rudolph wrote: > Michael Thomas wrote: >> Is the sign that's going up as I type on our balcony. It's personal >> now.
> While you're at it: apparently African-Americans and Latinos voted > heavily for Prop 8, too (one would think that history culminating > with Loving v. Virginia would provide some perspective...as if):
Damn but it's aggravating. Sure I expected the hotbed of knuckle dragging, red-neck, thumpers around these parts (Ohio) to pass one of the most restrictive amendments, but I'd hoped my home state of California would fight off the ignorant masses.
It's enough to make one go all militant on the nay-sayers.
-- Willyboy |"I know of no more encouraging fact | than the unquestionable ability of willyboy at one dot net | man to elevate his life by a conscious | endeavor" -H. D. Thoreau ------------------------------------------------------------------- Willy is a charter member of the Peter Pan Club. Ask him about it.
Ken Rudolph <ke...@nospamkenru.net> writes: > Michael Thomas wrote: >> Is the sign that's going up as I type on our balcony. It's personal >> now.
> While you're at it: apparently African-Americans and Latinos voted > heavily for Prop 8, too (one would think that history culminating with > Loving v. Virginia would provide some perspective...as if):
Michael Thomas wrote: > > Is the sign that's going up as I type on our balcony.
> > It's personal now.
Ken Rudolph:
> While you're at it: apparently African-Americans and Latinos voted > heavily for Prop 8, too (one would think that history culminating > with Loving v. Virginia would provide some perspective...as if):
White (63%) Yes - 49%, No - 51% Af-Am (10%) Yes - 70%, No - 30% Latino (18%) Yes - 53%, No - 47% Asian (6%) Yes - 49%, No - 51% Other (3%) Yes - 51%, No - 49%
Michael Thomas wrote: > Ken Rudolph <ke...@nospamkenru.net> writes: >> Michael Thomas wrote: >>> Is the sign that's going up as I type on our balcony. It's personal >>> now. >> While you're at it: apparently African-Americans and Latinos voted >> heavily for Prop 8, too (one would think that history culminating with >> Loving v. Virginia would provide some perspective...as if):
season <myfirstandlastn...@gmail.com> wrote: > this makes my angry heart smile. i'm so fucking pissed > at them for casting a shadow over the happiness of > obama's win.
At some point you've got to define a politician by his actions.
Which is to say, where the fuck was Obama's outrage while the Yes-On-8 crowd were campaigning in his name.... and even using a recording of his voice?
It seems to me that you'd really have to want to fool yourself in order to not see it....
> White (63%) Yes - 49%, No - 51% > Af-Am (10%) Yes - 70%, No - 30% > Latino (18%) Yes - 53%, No - 47% > Asian (6%) Yes - 49%, No - 51% > Other (3%) Yes - 51%, No - 49%
So, basically, blacks passed Prop. 8 in an otherwise squeaker tie or loss involving all the non-blacks. Why are blacks so heavily anti-same-sex marriage? Is it just a case of "I got mine, Jack...fuck off" minority thinking? Is it the extreme power of the black churches, even more than with the fundies, apparently? What is so strange is that black families are famously fractured, with strong matriarchal underpinnings, absent fathers (many in jail). I wouldn't suppose the great message: "Think of the children" of the Yes-on-8 tv campaign was targeted at blacks. In fact, one of last No-on-8 commercials used a picture of Obama as being against the amendment in their "It's unfair and wrong" campaign.
Turns out that maybe the general election that brought out a massive black turnout for Obama may have been the clincher that passed Prop. 8. Who'd'a thunk it.
Ken Rudolph <ke...@nospamkenru.net> writes: > While you're at it: apparently African-Americans and Latinos voted > heavily for Prop 8, too (one would think that history culminating with > Loving v. Virginia would provide some perspective...as if):
> Is the sign that's going up as I type on our balcony.
> It's personal now.
I have had a lot of experience with Mormons and have found them really nice, kind, thoughtful people. I have for years spoken really well of the, seeing them as people of principle on their religion, who believed very strongly, but who were, nonetheless, very good community participatns, good neighbors, who did not push their beliefs on other people. There was good historical reason for this, given how persecuted they've been throughout history, and I thought they'd learned that lesson from their history and this was why they were so admirable in secular society despite having batshit-crazy personal religious beliefs.
I was raised Southern Baptist, and the church that I was raised in was one that also held very strong beliefs that it was not the role of the believer to interfere in secular society, that one rendered unto Caesar and so forth. That all changed in the late 70s, around the time of the rise of Reagan-era conservatism and the so-called Moral Majority. My parents remained believers in both the rightness of their own beliefs but also in the principle that it wasn't their business to push their beliefs on other people (which didn't preclude witnessing to them). For example, my parents believed that abortion was wrong, but that Roe vs. Wade is the correct response in a civil society where everyone does not believe the same way they do.
Historically, Mormons that I have known have been very much in that vein in terms of the relationship between their personal beliefs and their roles in civil society.
That all changed when the LDS church actively campaigned for Proposition 8. They used the churches to promote Yes on 8. They organized people to give money. They encouraged people to travel to CA and campaign for it.
I have decided that Mormons who supported Prop. 8, or who have not taken their church to task for supporting it are now anathema.
I will not knowingly do business with any Mormon business unless the proprieters can demonstrate to me that they did something active against Prop. 8.
When they choose to interfere in the secular affairs of other people, they forfeit due consideration from me. When they associate themselves with an organization that interferes in the lives of others, they forfeit my good will unless they work against that meddling.
I think the LDS church has made a huge mistake here. They have now lost the good will of a lot of people like me who were previously quite well-disposed to them as the upstanding citizens that they have been historically.
And the hypocrisy of the issue on which they broke with their history is breathtaking.
Until now I considered them in a completely different class than the crazy fundalegicals.
Amy Mora, a 26-year-old teacher, came with her mother to a polling place in Lynwood on Tuesday morning. She said she believes gay people have the right to marry one another. But she said she voted in favor of Proposition 8 because she does not believe students should be taught that gay marriage is acceptable.
In a rational world, the only correct response to such a belief would be:
Congratulations, Amy Mora! You have forfeited your right to vote. Ever.
> Turns out that maybe the general election that brought out a > massive black turnout for Obama may have been the clincher that > passed Prop. 8. Who'd'a thunk it.
Actually, lots and lots of people did. Many in the left blogosphere were speculating on just such an outcome for the last few weeks. Last night I saw one comment suggesting that perhaps an early win for Obama in the East would suppress Black turnout in CA and help Prop. 8 go down to defeat.
"David W. Fenton" <XXXuse...@dfenton.com.invalid> writes:
> My roommate had a clever idea:
> A CA ballot initiative call the Protect Marriage Initiative. Its > content would run something like this:
> Divorce in California is not permitted and no divorce granted in any > other state shall be recognized by California law.
I've already seen a suggestion for an amendment forbidding the validity or recognition of a marriage between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. That didn't work so well, as it turns out they're not actually married yet or something.
> That all changed when the LDS church actively campaigned for > Proposition 8. They used the churches to promote Yes on 8. They > organized people to give money. They encouraged people to travel to > CA and campaign for it.
This is by no means the first time the Mormons have been the driving force against equal rights for gays, especially when it comes to same- sex marriage. The LDS church is very strong in Hawaii. When that state's Supreme Court found in *1993* that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. and ordered the legislature to try to come up with a good reason to continue doing so, it was the LDS church that swung into action and bankrolled the push for a constitutional amendment -- Amendment 2 -- that was eventually passed in 1998.
> > White (63%) Yes - 49%, No - 51% > > Af-Am (10%) Yes - 70%, No - 30% > > Latino (18%) Yes - 53%, No - 47% > > Asian (6%) Yes - 49%, No - 51% > > Other (3%) Yes - 51%, No - 49%
> So, basically, blacks passed Prop. 8 in an otherwise squeaker tie or > loss involving all the non-blacks. Why are blacks so heavily > anti-same-sex marriage? Is it just a case of "I got mine, > Jack...fuck off" minority thinking? Is it the extreme power of the > black churches, even more than with the fundies, apparently? What > is so strange is that black families are famously fractured, with > strong matriarchal underpinnings, absent fathers (many in jail). I > wouldn't suppose the great message: "Think of the children" of the > Yes-on-8 tv campaign was targeted at blacks. In fact, one of last > No-on-8 commercials used a picture of Obama as being against the > amendment in their "It's unfair and wrong" campaign.
> Turns out that maybe the general election that brought out a massive > black turnout for Obama may have been the clincher that passed Prop. > 8. Who'd'a thunk it.
> > White (63%) Yes - 49%, No - 51% > > Af-Am (10%) Yes - 70%, No - 30% > > Latino (18%) Yes - 53%, No - 47% > > Asian (6%) Yes - 49%, No - 51% > > Other (3%) Yes - 51%, No - 49%
> So, basically, blacks passed Prop. 8 in an otherwise squeaker tie or > loss involving all the non-blacks. Why are blacks so heavily > anti-same-sex marriage? Is it just a case of "I got mine, > Jack...fuck off" minority thinking? Is it the extreme power of the > black churches, even more than with the fundies, apparently? What > is so strange is that black families are famously fractured, with > strong matriarchal underpinnings, absent fathers (many in jail). I > wouldn't suppose the great message: "Think of the children" of the > Yes-on-8 tv campaign was targeted at blacks. In fact, one of last > No-on-8 commercials used a picture of Obama as being against the > amendment in their "It's unfair and wrong" campaign.
Where did whites get the idea that black people on the whole embrace a liberal social agenda?
It has seemed to me that while many blacks want particular items that from that agenda, that they are otherwise often cautious and conservative on social questions. For many years I worked for the City University of New York, in units that had a large representation of blacks and Latinos, both low-level clerical workers and professionals. Overall I found very, very few of them to be what I would call liberal. And this was never more apparent than duirng the AIDS epidemic when most were hostile and unsympathetic.
> Turns out that maybe the general election that brought out a massive > black turnout for Obama may have been the clincher that passed Prop. > 8. Who'd'a thunk it.
Me. We talk about demonizing people; well, I think we gay people have "angelized" blacks...its a white liberal stereotype of the black person.
I think we gay people have projected our own feelings onto blacks because by and large, it seems to me, that most white gay people have had very little limited personal exposure to large numbers of black people. Anyone who has seen how so many blacks very quickly and very deeply resent any comparison between the discrimination and persecution gay people have suffered and that suffered by blacks would not have been surprised.
> I think we gay people have projected our own feelings onto blacks > because by and large, it seems to me, that most white gay people have > had very little limited personal exposure to large numbers of black > people. Anyone who has seen how so many blacks very quickly and very > deeply resent any comparison between the discrimination and > persecution gay people have suffered and that suffered by blacks would > not have been surprised.
I'm reminded of the gays in the military arguments in the early 90s too.
-- (*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate www.davidhorne.net (email address on website) "The fact is that when I compose I never think of and never have thought of meeting the listener." -George Perle
In article <Y92dnSHlhsWb-o_UnZ2dnUVZ_jydn...@supernews.com>, Ken Rudolph <ke...@nospamkenru.net> wrote:
> Why are blacks so heavily > anti-same-sex marriage? Is it just a case of "I got mine, > Jack...fuck off" minority thinking? Is it the extreme power of the > black churches, even more than with the fundies, apparently? What > is so strange is that black families are famously fractured, with > strong matriarchal underpinnings, absent fathers (many in jail).
I suspect it's that black marriages and relationships are so fractured that they're terrified of anything that might put that more at risk, and black males who have sex with men apparently often don't identify as gay but marry women and simply consider their sex with men as something more hypersexual than homosexual.
After reading some West African history, I decided that the friction in black American culture between matriarchal and patriarchal traditions predates American slavery. Islam and other monothesisms supported the patriarchal traditions; the animist polytheistic traditions (see Voudon and Santeria) supported the matriarchal.
Voudon is anti-gay, so there's no alternative tradition from African roots that supports gay rights. The gods are very gendered and behave in gender typical ways.
Rebecca Ore <macogoe...@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <Y92dnSHlhsWb-o_UnZ2dnUVZ_jydn...@supernews.com>, > Ken Rudolph <ke...@nospamkenru.net> wrote:
> > Why are blacks so heavily > > anti-same-sex marriage? Is it just a case of "I got mine, > > Jack...fuck off" minority thinking? Is it the extreme power of the > > black churches, even more than with the fundies, apparently? What > > is so strange is that black families are famously fractured, with > > strong matriarchal underpinnings, absent fathers (many in jail).
> I suspect it's that black marriages and relationships are so fractured > that they're terrified of anything that might put that more at risk,
I don't suspect that at all.
-- (*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate www.davidhorne.net (email address on website) "The fact is that when I compose I never think of and never have thought of meeting the listener." -George Perle
Bitty <bi...@spamwives.com> wrote: >Instead of reading a good book, season <myfirstandlastn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> season, who is distracting herself by watching lily tomlin on desperate >> housewives
> I'm really looking forward to more of her plot line :)
And she makes a perfect companion to Kathryn Joosten.
Come to think of it, the last time we saw Tomlin she was replacing Joosten's deceased character on _The West Wing_. -- ---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------ "You ain't seen from animus." --Ken Rudolph
