FUCK MORMONS
Michael Thomas
Is the sign that's going up as I type on our balcony.
It's personal now.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
shirikodama is best enjoyed through the anus
Frank McQuarry
> Is the sign that's going up as I type on our balcony.
>
> It's personal now.
I just thank GOD, that the sanctity of Britney Spears's 50 minute
marriage has been rescued from defilement.
Ken Rudolph
> 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):
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html
Much litigation to follow.
--Ken Rudolph
Willyboy
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.
Michael Thomas
Rod Williams
> > 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):
>
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html
CNN has exit polls on Prop 8 voters, pro and con:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
Here's the breakdown by race...
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%
season
> 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):
>>
>> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html
>>
>> Much litigation to follow.
>
> It's up!
>
> http://mtcc.com/~mike/fuckmormons2.jpg
this makes my angry heart smile. i'm so fucking pissed at them for
casting a shadow over the happiness of obama's win.
season, who is distracting herself by watching lily tomlin on desperate
housewives
JTEM
> 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....
Ken Rudolph
> CNN has exit polls on Prop 8 voters, pro and con:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
>
> Here's the breakdown by race...
>
> 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
Jed Davis
> 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):
>
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html
CNN has stats on Prop 8 voting for assorted demographic divisions:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
A *lot* of assorted demographic divisions. None of it is too terribly
surprising, though, given the end result.
--
(let ((C call-with-current-continuation)) (apply (lambda (x y) (x y)) (map
((lambda (r) ((C C) (lambda (s) (r (lambda l (apply (s s) l)))))) (lambda
(f) (lambda (l) (if (null? l) C (lambda (k) (display (car l)) ((f (cdr l))
(C k))))))) '((#\J #\d #\D #\v #\s) (#\e #\space #\a #\i #\newline)))))
David W. Fenton
news:m3ej1pu...@fugu.mtcc.com:
> 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.
No more.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
David W. Fenton
news:9POdnZJ5-_7NtI_U...@earthlink.com:
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.
David W. Fenton
news:KY-dnc1id9t7r4_U...@supernews.com:
> Much litigation to follow.
My blog entry on this from 2am Wed. morning
(http://www.dfenton.com/NoComment/2008/11/too-dumb-to-vote-from-la-ti
mes-article.html):
Too Dumb to Vote: From the LA Times article
(http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,154
5381.story?page=2) on Prop. 8 (as of 2:08am Wednesday morning):
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.
David W. Fenton
> http://mtcc.com/~mike/fuckmormons2.jpg
Excellent. I've forwarded a link to that to a number of friends who
are equally pissed off about it.
David W. Fenton
> 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.
Jed Davis
> 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.
There's also http://www.bunny-comic.com/?id=1264 .
David Gartner
> Frank McQuarry <fmcq...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:9POdnZJ5-_7NtI_U...@earthlink.com:
>
>> Michael Thomas wrote:
>>> Is the sign that's going up as I type on our balcony.
>>>
>>> It's personal now.
>>
>> I just thank GOD, that the sanctity of Britney Spears's 50 minute
>> marriage has been rescued from defilement.
>
> 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.
Add adultery to the list.
d
Rod Williams
[ ...good Mormon stuff snipped...]
> 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.
jcarr...@gmail.com
jcarr...@gmail.com
> > CNN has exit polls on Prop 8 voters, pro and con:
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
>
> > Here's the breakdown by race...
>
> > 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.
Jack
JTEM
Rod Williams <rjwi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is by no means the first time the Mormons
"Mormons".... right.
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
[]
> 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
Rebecca Ore
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.
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
> In article <Y92dnSHlhsWb-o_U...@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.
Robert S. Coren
Bitty <bi...@spamwives.com> wrote:
>Instead of reading a good book, season <myfirstan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> season, who is distracting herself by watching lily tomlin on desperate
>> housewives
>
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
Robert S. Coren
In a LiveJournal discussion on this very topic, the person who posted
the stats (whom many here know) pointed out that, considering the
relatively small percentage of the total vote represented by blacks,
one could just as well blame white San Franciscans who didn't bother
to vote, or who voted for Obama but abstained on Prop 8; or to note
just how small a percentage of whites would have had to vote the other
way to defeat Prop 8.
In other words, it's possibly unfair, and almost certainly
counterproductive in the long run, to blame this defeat primarily on
black voters.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"I read _The Tao of Pooh_, and I couldn't decide whether it was
Taoism or _Winnie-the-Pooh_ that merited further investigation."
--Jeffrey William McKeough
Frank McQuarry
> Frank McQuarry <fmcq...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:9POdnZJ5-_7NtI_U...@earthlink.com:
>
>> Michael Thomas wrote:
>>> Is the sign that's going up as I type on our balcony.
>>>
>>> It's personal now.
>> I just thank GOD, that the sanctity of Britney Spears's 50 minute
>> marriage has been rescued from defilement.
>
> 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.
>
A like the idea better of a ballot initiative that dissolves the
marriages of anyone who gave money to support prop 8.
David Gartner
There's a petition to take away the Mormon church's tax exempt
status:
http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/
d
Ruth Lawrence
"David Gartner" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> There's a petition to take away the Mormon church's tax exempt
> status:
> http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/
*All* churches etc would suit me.
Ruth
Rebecca Ore
"Ruth Lawrence" <curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
If their parishioners don't follow the tenets of their churches
(Christians must visit those in prison, clothe the naked, feed the
hungry, and leave to Caesar the thing of Caesar), then tax them as
country clubs.
David W. Fenton
news:a41ccd6e-5f11-42fb...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.co
m:
> David W. Fenton:
>
> [ ...good Mormon stuff snipped...]
>
>> 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.
But was it only the LDS churches in Hawaii, or, as with Prop. 8, LDS
churches from Utah meddling in CA affairs?
> 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.
I didn't know that.
Ruth Lawrence
"Rebecca Ore" <macog...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:macogoense-23DA2...@x-134-84-202-74.pres.umn.edu...
I would tax them *regardless*.
That said, I do support need-based government aid to religious schools that
follow the curriculum (as well as stuff they may add to it).
Little kid's don't choose their schools.
Ruth
David W. Fenton
news:1ipzq50.18pn1521u5o5mcN%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk:
><jcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> []
>> 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.
Um, in Fall of 1992, just before Clinton took office (I'm not sure
if it was before or after the actual election), the Secretary of
Defense testified before Congress. When asked about the prohibition
against gays in the military (this predated DADT, of course), he
responde;
That's an old chestnut.
The clear implication at the time was that this was an old-fashioned
policy that should probably be revisited and reversed.
Who was that Sec. of Defense?
Dick Cheney.
In other words, allowing gays in the military was not a particularly
controversial move until a bunch of Neanderthal Republicans and
Democrats stirred up the shit in response to one of Bill Clinton's
first initiatives. That opposition was mostly about hurting Bill
Clinton, it seems to me (though the morons who did it were also very
clearly anti-gay).
David W. Fenton
> In article <Y92dnSHlhsWb-o_U...@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,
... which gay marriage would *not* do, of course.
> 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.
... which gay marriage would not change one iota.
I'm sorry, but I'm no longer going to allow people to make excuses
for homophobia based on their own inability to keep clearly
unrelated issues separate.
David W. Fenton
news:gev8h0$lf5$1...@panix2.panix.com:
> In other words, it's possibly unfair, and almost certainly
> counterproductive in the long run, to blame this defeat primarily
> on black voters.
If blacks had turned out at the same rate in 2008 as in 2004, Prop.
8 would have failed. I read a post yesterday where somebody ran the
numbers, and it's pretty much indisputable (I can't find it now).
In fact, this very outcome was foreseen by many people precisely
because the increase in black turnout was predicted to be so high,
and included a lot of people opposed to gay marriage.
I blame the Mormons a lot more, though. They are the ones who
bankrolled the despicable lies that were broadcast in the ads for
Prop. 8, and most of that money they raised didn't even come from CA
residents.
Michael Palmer
jcarr...@gmail.com wrote:
>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. =A0Who'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.
This was brought home to me when TMIQ and I became partners, and I
began spending a considerable amount of time in Cincinnati. My father
had marched with Fred Shuttlesworth, now the dean of black ministers
in Cincinnati, in the 1950s and 1960s, and I naturally assumed he was
liberal, and hence pro-gay. It was an illusion of which I was quickly
abused. In a city that is 40% black, he and his fellow black
clergymen were instrumental in passing Issue 12, which removed gays
and lesbians from the anti-discrimination clause in the city charter.
And just this morning, waiting for the USC bus, I overheard two black
women, both administrators at the university, talking about the
election, rejoicing that Obama had won and, in the same breath, that
Prop 8 had passed.
--
Michael Palmer
Claremont, California
mpa...@panix.com
Michael Thomas
>> driving force against equal rights for gays, especially when it
>> comes to same- sex marriage. The LDS church is very strong in
>> Hawaii.
>
> But was it only the LDS churches in Hawaii, or, as with Prop. 8, LDS
> churches from Utah meddling in CA affairs?
The Mormons are very, very hierarchical. There is no such
thing as rogue churches, AFAIK.
>> 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.
>
> I didn't know that.
However, suffice it to say that this time was
far and away a different creature than ordinary
meddling. Telling your flock to kill faggot
marriage or risk eternal damnation is a little
beyond the pale.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
shirikodama is best enjoyed through the anus
Ellen Evans
Michael Palmer <mpa...@panix.com> wrote:
[]
>This was brought home to me when TMIQ and I became partners, and I
>began spending a considerable amount of time in Cincinnati. My father
>had marched with Fred Shuttlesworth, now the dean of black ministers
>in Cincinnati, in the 1950s and 1960s, and I naturally assumed he was
>liberal, and hence pro-gay. It was an illusion of which I was quickly
>abused. In a city that is 40% black, he and his fellow black
>clergymen were instrumental in passing Issue 12, which removed gays
>and lesbians from the anti-discrimination clause in the city charter.
Until Kennedy the black church was historically Republican and a very
conservative cultural force. In many respects it still is. There's a big
brouhaha on a local dyke listserv about this - one person posted that she
was mad that 70% of black voters voted for prop 8 and immediately a bunch
of other people basically called her a racist, and then everything went
quickly to hell. What isn't happening is much discussion of a) this is
clearly a fact b) what are the gay community's options in dealing with
this obvious tendency in the black voting population. Just getting mad
and yelling about the black people won't help, and pretending that black
voters don't vote this way and that anyway they weren't the main reason
prop 8 succeeded doesn't help either. (The Washington Post, among many
other sources, confirms that historic voter turnout among black voters
energized by the Obama campaign was clearly a key factor in prop 8
success.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html
But this is the question going forward: not whose fault is it, but what
can be done to address the problem?
--
--
Ellen Evans If my life wasn't funny, it would
je...@panix.com just be true, and that's unacceptable.
Carrie Fisher
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
> d4g...@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote in
> news:1ipzq50.18pn1521u5o5mcN%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk:
>
> ><jcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > []
> >> 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.
>
> Um, in Fall of 1992,
You're missing the point. It was argued that some of the reasons people
gave against allowing gays in the military were similar to those for not
allowing black people in decades before. To counter that, there was a
response by bigots (some of whom were black) to the effect that gays
shouldn't dare compare themselves to black people, or the civil rights
movement in general.
Rebecca Ore
"David W. Fenton" <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
> Rebecca Ore <macog...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:macogoense-74C67...@x-134-84-202-74.pres.umn.edu:
>
> > In article <Y92dnSHlhsWb-o_U...@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,
>
> ... which gay marriage would *not* do, of course.
That they're wrong about what would happen doesn't mean they don't
believe what they believe. The issue is to change their minds.
>
> > 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.
>
> ... which gay marriage would not change one iota.
If black males who are basically homosexual but who are in marriages of
deception decided that they could live different lives, this might
actually have an impact on the marriages they presently have.
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm no longer going to allow people to make excuses
> for homophobia based on their own inability to keep clearly
> unrelated issues separate.
Understanding !=excusing, really.
Rod Williams
> Um, in Fall of 1992, just before Clinton took office (I'm not sure
> if it was before or after the actual election), the Secretary of
> Defense testified before Congress. When asked about the prohibition
> against gays in the military (this predated DADT, of course), he
> responde;
>
> That's an old chestnut.
>
> The clear implication at the time was that this was an old-fashioned
> policy that should probably be revisited and reversed.
>
> Who was that Sec. of Defense?
>
> Dick Cheney.
>
> In other words, allowing gays in the military was not a particularly
> controversial move until a bunch of Neanderthal Republicans and
> Democrats stirred up the shit in response to one of Bill Clinton's
> first initiatives. That opposition was mostly about hurting Bill
> Clinton, it seems to me (though the morons who did it were also very
> clearly anti-gay).
Perhaps. But Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter and his public support of
her and her family, and his (quietly) expressed opposition to Bush's
and the GOP's various anti-gay positions... all render him an
unreliable guide to what might or might not have been controversial
about gays in the military in 1992.
Rod Williams
> Until Kennedy the black church was historically Republican and a very
> conservative cultural force. In many respects it still is. There's a big
> brouhaha on a local dyke listserv about this - one person posted that she
> was mad that 70% of black voters voted for prop 8 and immediately a bunch
> of other people basically called her a racist, and then everything went
> quickly to hell. What isn't happening is much discussion of a) this is
> clearly a fact b) what are the gay community's options in dealing with
> this obvious tendency in the black voting population. Just getting mad
> and yelling about the black people won't help, and pretending that black
> voters don't vote this way and that anyway they weren't the main reason
[... snip...]
> But this is the question going forward: not whose fault is it, but what
> can be done to address the problem?
When Obama started speaking in black churches about his support of
equal rights for gays and lesbians, much was made of the fact that no
one had done this before. Why not? Most black Democratic politicians
pay at the very least lip service to the party platform of commitment
to LGBT equality. Why don't they speak about that in their churches
and in their community, instead of saving it for HRC dinners?
We've been hearing about the AfAm community's conservatism and
homophobia and denial about the disproportionate rates of HIV/AIDS in
their communities over and over for a couple of decades now. Why
aren't their own leaders -- politicians or media or pastors or
celebrities -- addressing that? And why aren't AfAm LGBTs coming out
in their own communities and organizing and doing something about it
themselves? And, to the extent that they are doing this, how can the
rest of us support their efforts?
Rod Williams
> > In other words, it's possibly unfair, and almost certainly
> > counterproductive in the long run, to blame this defeat primarily
> > on black voters.
David W. Fenton:
> If blacks had turned out at the same rate in 2008 as in 2004, Prop.
> 8 would have failed. I read a post yesterday where somebody ran the
> numbers, and it's pretty much indisputable (I can't find it now).
Try this... http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/11/prop-8-and-the.html
Michael Thomas
> 8 would have failed. I read a post yesterday where somebody ran the
> numbers, and it's pretty much indisputable (I can't find it now).
>
> In fact, this very outcome was foreseen by many people precisely
> because the increase in black turnout was predicted to be so high,
> and included a lot of people opposed to gay marriage.
If there is any silver lining, their likelihood of turning
out in record numbers again any time soon is about zilch.
If all of those young voters could be coaxed to keep
voting, on the other hand, it could be a very different
situation in a few years. And if nothing else, those young
voters will soon enough be in the normal voting groove anyway.
> I blame the Mormons a lot more, though. They are the ones who
> bankrolled the despicable lies that were broadcast in the ads for
> Prop. 8, and most of that money they raised didn't even come from CA
> residents.
Yes. There's a lot of hate to go around, but the
Mormons deserve special recognition here of the
church calling this a divine imperative, and
their flock eagerly, avidly, answering the
call. Anybody who thought that blacks and
latinos were in our column was deluded, but it
takes a lot of money to whip hysteria up, which is
what the Mormon scum were instrumental providing.
Michael Thomas
> We've been hearing about the AfAm community's conservatism and
> homophobia and denial about the disproportionate rates of HIV/AIDS in
> their communities over and over for a couple of decades now. Why
> aren't their own leaders -- politicians or media or pastors or
> celebrities -- addressing that? And why aren't AfAm LGBTs coming out
> in their own communities and organizing and doing something about it
> themselves? And, to the extent that they are doing this, how can the
> rest of us support their efforts?
Or we can bring back caging. I hear Karl Rove is available
these days.
ailuropoda melanoleuca torontonensis
Washington Post this morning?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_11072008_290.gif
ailuropoda melanoleuca torontonensis
ailuropoda melanoleuca torontonensis
> But this is the question going forward: not whose fault is it, but what
> can be done to address the problem?
I've just learned of an initiative by the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian
Center
http://www.lagaycenter.org/site/PageServer
they're collecting $$ to do the going-forward work (which will, of
course, not come cheap), and offering donors the opportunity of
sending a message to the LDS church at the same time.
From the LAG&LC website:
<><><><><
Send a message to the Mormon Church, whose members raised more than
$15 million to fund the deceitful advertising campaign for Proposition
8, the initiative that takes away the right to marry for same sex
couples in California!
Make a donation, in the name of the president of the Mormon Church, to
support the legal organizations working to invalidate Proposition 8
and to fund grass-roots activities in support of full marriage
equality. For every donation of $5 or more, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian
Center will send the following postcard to President Thomas Monson’s
office in Salt Lake City, acknowledging your donation in his name:
== == ==
Dear President Monson:
A donation has been made in your name by _________________ to
“invalidateprop8.org” to overturn California's Proposition 8 and
restore fundamental civil rights to all citizens of California. The
money will be donated to legal organizations fighting the case and to
support grass-roots activities in support of full marriage equality.
Although we decry the reprehensible role the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints leadership played in denying all Californians equal
rights under the law, we are pleased a donation has been made on your
behalf in the effort to overturn the discrimination your church
members helped enshrine in the California Constitution. Given that
throughout its history the Mormon Church has been subjected to
bigotry, we hope you appreciate the donation in your name to fight
religious bigotry here in California.
== == ==
Let’s work to overturn Prop. 8 while sending a message to the Mormon
Church that it’s wrong for any organization to exert political
influence to deny the civil rights of any group!
<><><><><><>
manly its always gracious to send a thank-you letter after receiving a
gift panda
leroy dominique
Stranger yet that you would pass over the 2 largest supporting groups to
do so.
The way I see it Californians passed the proposition.
In article <Y92dnSHlhsWb-o_U...@supernews.com>,
Ken Rudolph <ke...@nospamkenru.net> wrote:
> Rod Williams wrote:
>
> > CNN has exit polls on Prop 8 voters, pro and con:
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
> >
> > Here's the breakdown by race...
> >
> > 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
Ned Deily
>The way I see it Californians passed the proposition.
Yes. Yes, we did. With a large bit of help.
As usual, Mark Morford has thoughts on the matter and he blames "God",
more specifically: "a very gloomy, revisionist version of the divine, a
sour and demeaning mindset that believes in restriction, constriction,
dread".
"[...] The vast majority of Yes on 8 voters seem to have been motivated,
at least in part, by this sad misunderstanding of God, this harsh
spiritual slant that supports a discriminatory, micromanager Almighty
who fully endorses marital bliss, but only for some.
(Interestingly, I believe this is the same God who, until recently,
didn't allow whites to marry blacks. Or women to vote. Or slaves to be
free. Or people to get divorced. Or women to become priests. Or humans
to wear condoms. Hmm.)"
--
Ned Deily,
n...@visi.com -- []
leroy dominique
Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> "David W. Fenton" <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> writes:
> > If blacks had turned out at the same rate in 2008 as in 2004, Prop.
> > 8 would have failed. I read a post yesterday where somebody ran the
> > numbers, and it's pretty much indisputable (I can't find it now).
> >
> > In fact, this very outcome was foreseen by many people precisely
> > because the increase in black turnout was predicted to be so high,
> > and included a lot of people opposed to gay marriage.
>
> If there is any silver lining, their likelihood of turning
> out in record numbers again any time soon is about zilch.
That's a rather fucked up thing to say. There's a bit, okay a lot, of
bitterness aimed at black folks here that is rather odd. I mean, 7% of
the yes votes were by blacks, while over 30% was by whites and over 9%
by latinos. Did any of the no on prop 8 money attempt to reach blacks?
latinos? others?
Rod Williams
"Mormons vs. Gays"...
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/mormons-vs-gays.html
"...gay people and their families now have every right to highlight
the Mormon church as an enemy of civil rights and of gay people
everywhere. This will be decried as bigotry. But gays are not fighting
to remove the civil rights of Mormons; while Mormons have successfully
campaigned to remove the civil rights of gays."
Jed Davis
> Until Kennedy the black church was historically Republican and a very
> conservative cultural force. In many respects it still is. There's a big
> brouhaha on a local dyke listserv about this - one person posted that she
> was mad that 70% of black voters voted for prop 8 and immediately a bunch
> of other people basically called her a racist, and then everything went
> quickly to hell.
It's not just that mailing list; arguments of approximately that form
have taken place elsewhere.
In fact, one needn't even express personal dislike for the black voters
who went yes on 8; a simple mention of the 70% figure seems to be enough
to set some people off. And, really, if I wanted that level of
discourse I could just go over to soc.bi and say "monosexual".
And it's a bit... disappointing to see, as I do, this all reduced to a
question of who could shove more and better-crafted propaganda through
the teevee into people's eyeballs before the 4th. This is no way to run
a government, let alone EDIT A GODDAMN CONSTITUTION.
--
(let ((C call-with-current-continuation)) (apply (lambda (x y) (x y)) (map
((lambda (r) ((C C) (lambda (s) (r (lambda l (apply (s s) l)))))) (lambda
(f) (lambda (l) (if (null? l) C (lambda (k) (display (car l)) ((f (cdr l))
(C k))))))) '((#\J #\d #\D #\v #\s) (#\e #\space #\a #\i #\newline)))))
Jed Davis
> Fortunately, the math on this one is pretty easy thanks to
> well-rounded numbers like "70%", "10%", etc.
>
> Had the AfAm population even gone 50-50, as opposed to 70-30,
> that would have meant that we could subtract 2 percentage
> points from the final "Yes" column (20% of 10% being 2%),
> and add 2% to the final "No" column. (20% of 10% still
> working out, even a minute later, to 2%).
>
> Let's go to the big board, shall we?
>
> With 99% of the precincts reporting, the score is 52% Yes, 48% No.
>
> Had the AfAm population even just been random, we'd probaly at
> least be looking at a recount. To dismiss the influence of a group
> which goes 70/30, because they're "only" 10% of the gross, is
> just stupid.
I pointed this out once or twice in a LiveJournal comment thread (though
a bit more succinctly). I suspect that when I go to check that mailbox
later today I'll find I've been called a racist for my troubles and for
the sin of doing basic arithmetic.
It remains that (assuming one can trust the exit polls to within the
needed margin of error) if black voters had been 70% against instead of
70% for, Prop 8 would have failed. It also remains that if weekly
churchgoers had been *only* 70% in favor instead of 84%, that would make
for about the same difference.
I am in any case not about to blow up anyone's church. At least not if
the architecture is decent.
Jed Davis
> That's a rather fucked up thing to say. There's a bit, okay a lot, of
> bitterness aimed at black folks here that is rather odd. I mean, 7% of
> the yes votes were by blacks, while over 30% was by whites and over 9%
> by latinos. Did any of the no on prop 8 money attempt to reach blacks?
> latinos? others?
Word on the street is that the no-on-8 campaign indeed did not do much
in the way of targeting non-white voters, while the yes-on-8 side did.
It's also worth noting that (again, trusting the exit polls) there are
approximately 300000 black Californians who voted no on 8. That's a lot
of people.
David W. Fenton
news:m3vdv06...@fugu.mtcc.com:
> "David W. Fenton" <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> writes:
>> Rod Williams <rjw...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> 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.
>>
>> But was it only the LDS churches in Hawaii, or, as with Prop. 8,
>> LDS churches from Utah meddling in CA affairs?
>
> The Mormons are very, very hierarchical. There is no such
> thing as rogue churches, AFAIK.
I don't see how that answers the questions. Mormons living in Hawaii
arguably have a right to campaign on election issues in their own
states and give money to organizations supporting their point of
view. But the church outside the state in question really has no
business mobilizing its members to meddle in the affairs of a
different state. In the present case, the LDS nationwide was
mobilizing its members to give money to Yes On 8. I'm asking if the
national LDS did the same thing in the case of Hawaii.
You likely don't know, and I don't mean this as a gotcha or
anything. I'm just thinking that in this case, the LDS church acted
officially in a manner that they haven't in the past.
Michael Thomas
Why? I'm all for bigots of all stripes to stay
home on election day. Isn't it enough that I
blame Mormons first and foremost? This was in
many ways an accident of timing on the black
side of this equation. Which is not true of
Mormon meddling, IMO.
As far as education... I'm all for it. However
as I'm sure you're well aware, there is huge
swath of black people who find absolutely no
irony in their position that it's A-OK to put
the boot face of fags. Godly, even. I'm sorry,
but those -- like the ridiculous irony of the
Mormons -- are not minds open to education. Now
Latinos and America's love of ala carte
Catholicism... I don't know if we did enough
there. Probably not nearly enough.
In any case, if anything good comes of this, it
will be the huge spotlight the Mormons find
themselves in. If it does nothing more than
cause them to dial back the support next time
around, then we win.
David W. Fenton
m:
> David W. Fenton:
>> Um, in Fall of 1992, just before Clinton took office (I'm not
>> sure if it was before or after the actual election), the
>> Secretary of Defense testified before Congress. When asked about
>> the prohibition against gays in the military (this predated DADT,
>> of course), he responde;
>>
>> That's an old chestnut.
>>
>> The clear implication at the time was that this was an
>> old-fashioned policy that should probably be revisited and
>> reversed.
>>
>> Who was that Sec. of Defense?
>>
>> Dick Cheney.
>>
>> In other words, allowing gays in the military was not a
>> particularly controversial move until a bunch of Neanderthal
>> Republicans and Democrats stirred up the shit in response to one
>> of Bill Clinton's first initiatives. That opposition was mostly
>> about hurting Bill Clinton, it seems to me (though the morons who
>> did it were also very clearly anti-gay).
>
> Perhaps.
You could look it up. The context in which Clinton pledged to end
the ban on gays in the military was one in which most of the public
commentary on it made it seem like a not terribly controversial
issue. I remember that time. I remember being shocked at all the
nasties that crawled out of the woodwork, and maybe they really were
motivated by the particular issue, but in retrospect, given the vile
opposition to everything Clinton that followed for the next eight
years, it seems to me that it was more likely simply a convenient
excuse, a cudgel handed to them by Clinton with which to beat him
over the head.
Now, you can criticize Clinton's misreading of the political
situation in regard to the particular issue, and that's fair, but I
don't think it was at all overreaching for Clinton to have chosen to
take this simple action at the very beginning of his administration
without thinking it was going to be horridly controversial. At
least, it didn't seem like a really risky political choice at the
time.
> But Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter and his public support of
> her and her family, and his (quietly) expressed opposition to
> Bush's and the GOP's various anti-gay positions... all render him
> an unreliable guide to what might or might not have been
> controversial about gays in the military in 1992.
I strongly doubt that Cheney's private affairs had much effect on
his official statements and actions as Secretary of Defense. Had his
statement before Congress been against the policy of the
administration, I suspect some followup would have occurred, even in
the waning days of the Bush 41 administration.
David W. Fenton
> In article <Xns9B4EE60845F37f9...@74.209.136.93>,
> "David W. Fenton" <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Rebecca Ore <macog...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:macogoense-74C67...@x-134-84-202-74.pres.umn.edu
>> :
>>
>> > In article <Y92dnSHlhsWb-o_U...@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,
>>
>> ... which gay marriage would *not* do, of course.
>
> That they're wrong about what would happen doesn't mean they don't
> believe what they believe. The issue is to change their minds.
When the belief is wholly irrational and not based on any logic or
facts, how, exactly, does one go about "changing their minds?"
I think the problem is that they hate gays, think they're icky,
whatever. They need to change their HEARTS, which is where the
problem lies.
And that's not up to me to do.
>> > 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.
>>
>> ... which gay marriage would not change one iota.
>
> If black males who are basically homosexual but who are in
> marriages of deception decided that they could live different
> lives, this might actually have an impact on the marriages they
> presently have.
I don't understand your logic at all. I see it as simply more of the
"if you give gays equal rights, it will make people think BEING GAY
IS OK!!!!!" That's idiotic on the issue of gay rights in general,
and just as idiotic if it's believed by black people in regard to
black men on the down low.
>> I'm sorry, but I'm no longer going to allow people to make
>> excuses for homophobia based on their own inability to keep
>> clearly unrelated issues separate.
>
> Understanding !=excusing, really.
Sometimes it does, actually. Incomprehension is, perhaps, a better
response to such idiocy.
Rod Williams
> >>> 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.
David W. Fenton:
> >> But was it only the LDS churches in Hawaii, or, as with Prop. 8,
> >> LDS churches from Utah meddling in CA affairs?
Michael Thomas:
> > The Mormons are very, very hierarchical. There is no such
> > thing as rogue churches, AFAIK.
David W. Fenton:
> I don't see how that answers the questions. Mormons living in Hawaii
> arguably have a right to campaign on election issues in their own
> states and give money to organizations supporting their point of
> view. But the church outside the state in question really has no
> business mobilizing its members to meddle in the affairs of a
> different state. In the present case, the LDS nationwide was
> mobilizing its members to give money to Yes On 8. I'm asking if the
> national LDS did the same thing in the case of Hawaii.
>
> You likely don't know, and I don't mean this as a gotcha or
> anything. I'm just thinking that in this case, the LDS church acted
> officially in a manner that they haven't in the past.
Well, I'm not sure this fascinating history of Mormon meddling in gay
politics answers the question of whether instructions came from Salt
Lake City or not, but it certainly establishes that the LDS Church was
"officially" behind the Hawaii Amendment 2 effort. From Affirmation
(the LGBT Mormon organization)... http://www.affirmation.org/news/1996_11.shtml
Some relevant info...
"Hawaii Future Today (HFT) is the largest lobbying organization
fighting the legal recognition of same-gender unions in the Aloha
State. The group was founded by the Catholic and Mormon Churches. HFT
is headed by John A. Hoag, a prominent LDS leader.
Again, such as with Lee's [*] involvement in the Colorado Amendment 2
case, such a high profile leader in The Church would not take such a
visible political position without the blessing of church leaders.
Not only did the Mormon Church lobby elected officials in writing on
LDS letterhead, but professors from BYU-Hawaii submitted written
testimony "with considerable homophobic rhetoric and double-talk,"
said Hawaii activist Jim Cartwright during a Sunstone presentation.
Cartwright further stated the Mormon Church "directly appealed to all
members in Hawaii to support specific bills. He also accused The
Church of financially founding and supporting HFT in order to lobby on
a specific legislative issue."
[*] "Rex Lee, the late president of Brigham Young University in Provo,
UT, and former solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, led
the legal team that defended the State of Colorado in its fight to
sustain the anti-gay Amendment 2."
David W. Fenton
news:leroy.dominique-36...@news.verizon.net:
> In article <m3prl77...@fugu.mtcc.com>,
> Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>
>> "David W. Fenton" <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> writes:
>> > If blacks had turned out at the same rate in 2008 as in 2004,
>> > Prop. 8 would have failed. I read a post yesterday where
>> > somebody ran the numbers, and it's pretty much indisputable (I
>> > can't find it now).
>> >
>> > In fact, this very outcome was foreseen by many people
>> > precisely because the increase in black turnout was predicted
>> > to be so high, and included a lot of people opposed to gay
>> > marriage.
>>
>> If there is any silver lining, their likelihood of turning
>> out in record numbers again any time soon is about zilch.
>
> That's a rather fucked up thing to say. There's a bit, okay a lot,
> of bitterness aimed at black folks here that is rather odd.
Not by me, BTW. I see it as a factual issue, not a matter of blame.
When it was forecast, I responded to it as a painful fact that was
maybe going to cut against us, but didn't in my heart blame them for
voting what they believed.
I see a big difference between the blacks and Mormons who live in CA
who voted YES versus the Mormons outside CA who gave tons of money
and travelled to CA to help pass Prop. 8. If you live in the state,
you've got a stake in the issue that is much more than just
symbolic, and have every right to vote either way.
If you're from outside the state, well, not so much.
Mormons gave the money that allowed the awful, lying TV ads to be
produced and run. Those ads are likely what turned the tide, in my
opinion (see
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/dicamillo_polling_on_prop_8_ca.php for
what I think is an excellent rundown on the polling on Prop. 8 and
the putative "gay Bradley effect").
> I mean, 7% of
> the yes votes were by blacks, while over 30% was by whites and
> over 9% by latinos. Did any of the no on prop 8 money attempt to
> reach blacks? latinos? others?
I don't know about that. What I do know is that what I saw of the No
On 8 campaign's TV ads was mostly shitty.
And, interestingly, NO won in every ethnic group except African
Americans and Latinos. That means WHITE people voted NO, which
shocks the hell out of me, since a majority of white people are a
bunch of shits who mostly vote for Republicans (again, whites are
the only ethnic group nationwide to go for McCain instead of Obama).
Rod Williams
Dollars at Work: A look at Mormon influence in America's gay political
scene":
> http://www.affirmation.org/news/1996_11.shtml
Wow -- I <heart> Google! There's a wealth of info out there, like
this...
http://www.mormonsocialscience.org/?q=node/59
... "working paper - Richley Crapo: Chronology Of Mormon / LDS
Involvement In Same-Sex Marriage Politics." It runs from 1988 to
1997. First item...
"1988 - The Church contracts the Hawaii marketing agency, Hill and
Knowlton, to monitor and promote the Church's stance on gay issues in
state legislatures and the U.S. Congress. One function of working
through a nonmainland marketing agency was that the name of the Church
was separated from the legislative efforts that the firm undertook."
Michael Thomas
> Not by me, BTW. I see it as a factual issue, not a matter of blame.
> When it was forecast, I responded to it as a painful fact that was
> maybe going to cut against us, but didn't in my heart blame them for
> voting what they believed.
Well, I think that anybody that voted against us
should be held equally accountable. But I think
that what's really galling about the black vote
is not just that the irony is lost on them, but
that they are actively hostile to that
irony. What can you say to that? The hostility
is completely irrational in the same way that
delivered them Dred Scott; you just can't argue
with that set of people any more than you can
argue with Mormons.
> And, interestingly, NO won in every ethnic group except African
> Americans and Latinos. That means WHITE people voted NO, which
> shocks the hell out of me, since a majority of white people are a
> bunch of shits who mostly vote for Republicans (again, whites are
> the only ethnic group nationwide to go for McCain instead of Obama).
The one that pleasantly surprised me is that
Asians were against 8 (at least last I heard).
Culturally they are quite conservative, and
homosexuality is far from accepted with open
arms. They are a very large minority in
California as well. How'd that happen?
Ellen Evans
leroy dominique <leroy.d...@verizon.net> wrote:
[]
>That's a rather fucked up thing to say. There's a bit, okay a lot, of
>bitterness aimed at black folks here that is rather odd.
See, there's a problem. It's a demonstrable fact that the key change in
this election, demographically, vis-a-vis prop 8 is the much larger
percentage of black folks who voted, and those black folks also voted
overwhelmingly for prop 8. To point that out isn't necessarily bitterness
- it's fact finding. That's the case. And it's a case that many folks
simply weren't expecting.
>I mean, 7% of
>the yes votes were by blacks, while over 30% was by whites and over 9%
>by latinos.
But none of those groups, as a *group*, voted so overwhelmingly for prop
8. That's an important thing to know.
>Did any of the no on prop 8 money attempt to reach blacks?
>latinos? others?
I'd say the ads were *not* appropriately targeted at the black community.
Whereas the pro-8 organizers were very much involved in getting the black
church involved in pro-8 activism. This is exactly the sort of thing that
any social movement needs to notice.
leroy dominique
Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> leroy dominique <leroy.d...@verizon.net> writes:
> > In article <m3prl77...@fugu.mtcc.com>,
> > Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "David W. Fenton" <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> writes:
> >> > If blacks had turned out at the same rate in 2008 as in 2004, Prop.
> >> > 8 would have failed. I read a post yesterday where somebody ran the
> >> > numbers, and it's pretty much indisputable (I can't find it now).
> >> >
> >> > In fact, this very outcome was foreseen by many people precisely
> >> > because the increase in black turnout was predicted to be so high,
> >> > and included a lot of people opposed to gay marriage.
> >>
> >> If there is any silver lining, their likelihood of turning
> >> out in record numbers again any time soon is about zilch.
> >
> > That's a rather fucked up thing to say. There's a bit, okay a lot, of
> > bitterness aimed at black folks here that is rather odd. I mean, 7% of
> > the yes votes were by blacks, while over 30% was by whites and over 9%
> > by latinos. Did any of the no on prop 8 money attempt to reach blacks?
> > latinos? others?
>
> Why?
It's my understanding based on an earlier post by Ellen that the yes on
8 folks were spreading a great many lies as reasons to vote yes on 8
(children being forced to attend a gay something or the other comes to
mind now [not very clearly though]). Jed says that the no on 8 folks
focused on whites when the yes folks didn't.
> I'm all for bigots of all stripes to stay
> home on election day.
Aren't pro choice folks most likely to be pro death penalty and see
nothing wrong with that?
> Isn't it enough that I
> blame Mormons first and foremost?
Ah, I missed that. I did see the sign though. Love the color.
> This was in
> many ways an accident of timing on the black
> side of this equation. Which is not true of
> Mormon meddling, IMO.
I do hope that the black population will no longer be taken for granted
after this by anyone.
leroy dominique
"David W. Fenton" <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
Well this does impact them as well. You can get married in any state if
you meet that state's criteria and go back home. All states are supposed
to honor that marriage but that's not the case right now. The bulk of
the politicians are now pro-states rights to defend marriage. There's a
ugly states rights battle coming soon.
Rebecca Ore
"David W. Fenton" <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
> Rebecca Ore <macog...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:macogoense-E6892...@x-134-84-202-74.pres.umn.edu:
>
> > In article <Xns9B4EE60845F37f9...@74.209.136.93>,
> > "David W. Fenton" <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Rebecca Ore <macog...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:macogoense-74C67...@x-134-84-202-74.pres.umn.edu
> >> :
> >>
> >> > In article <Y92dnSHlhsWb-o_U...@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,
> >>
> >> ... which gay marriage would *not* do, of course.
> >
> > That they're wrong about what would happen doesn't mean they don't
> > believe what they believe. The issue is to change their minds.
>
> When the belief is wholly irrational and not based on any logic or
> facts, how, exactly, does one go about "changing their minds?"
One thing is to create a society where things aren't so bad for a
significant number of blacks that they use Christianity as an opiate.
>
> I think the problem is that they hate gays, think they're icky,
> whatever. They need to change their HEARTS, which is where the
> problem lies.
I suspect that they're opinion of blacks is shaped by their religions.
And relatively few American blacks are Buddhists (I have encountered
some).
>
> And that's not up to me to do.
I sometimes try subversion through fiction.
(snips)
>
> I don't understand your logic at all. I see it as simply more of the
> "if you give gays equal rights, it will make people think BEING GAY
> IS OK!!!!!" That's idiotic on the issue of gay rights in general,
> and just as idiotic if it's believed by black people in regard to
> black men on the down low.
If the cultural model for homosexual acts is that they're acts available
for sexual gratification by anyone (which may be more believable in
cultures where a male is more likely to have been in prison than in
college), not identities, then it's going to take a while for those
cultural models to go away, especially if they're reinforced by what I
suspect we both believe are looney toons religious ideas.
>
> >> I'm sorry, but I'm no longer going to allow people to make
> >> excuses for homophobia based on their own inability to keep
> >> clearly unrelated issues separate.
> >
> > Understanding !=excusing, really.
>
> Sometimes it does, actually. Incomprehension is, perhaps, a better
> response to such idiocy.
I suspect that improved involvement in mainstream American urban culture
will do more than Jesus can to justify gay marriage to blacks who now
voted against it.
leroy dominique
je...@panix.com (Ellen Evans) wrote:
> In article <leroy.dominique-36...@news.verizon.net>,
> leroy dominique <leroy.d...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> []
>
> >That's a rather fucked up thing to say. There's a bit, okay a lot, of
> >bitterness aimed at black folks here that is rather odd.
>
> See, there's a problem. It's a demonstrable fact that the key change in
> this election, demographically, vis-a-vis prop 8 is the much larger
> percentage of black folks who voted, and those black folks also voted
> overwhelmingly for prop 8. To point that out isn't necessarily bitterness
> - it's fact finding. That's the case. And it's a case that many folks
> simply weren't expecting.
I think there's a bit more than fact finding going on.
Rebecca Ore
Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> The one that pleasantly surprised me is that
> Asians were against 8 (at least last I heard).
> Culturally they are quite conservative, and
> homosexuality is far from accepted with open
> arms. They are a very large minority in
> California as well. How'd that happen?
They're not from religious traditions that have by and large considered
homosexuality a capital offense (the stigma against it in China was tied
with Marxist bullshit). The prevailing stereotypes about them are
benign and often positive (Asians are bright, capable, hardworking,
etc.). Being culturally conservative doesn't always mean sexually
conservative. I would also suspect that they're more likely not to be
regular church goers compared to people whose churches help them survive
shit from the mainstream culture.
My grandfather kicked his sister's companion out of his sister's house
after his sister died. I honestly can't imagine anyone in my current
family pulling that except for the California sister who left a church
after her pastor came out.
Tim McDaniel
Rebecca Ore <macog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The prevailing stereotypes about them are benign and often positive
>(Asians are bright, capable, hardworking, etc.).
I enjoyed the suggested coinage of "stereohyping".
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Michael Thomas
> Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>> I'm all for bigots of all stripes to stay
>> home on election day.
>
> Aren't pro choice folks most likely to be pro death penalty and see
> nothing wrong with that?
Well, that's rather my point: trying to reason
with them is impossible. Hoping or giving them
reason to stay home is probably a lot more
effective. Picking a fight with a group that is
not very likely to have a huge turnout again is
stupid tactics. And in fact is likely to make
them turn out in big numbers again.
>> Isn't it enough that I
>> blame Mormons first and foremost?
>
> Ah, I missed that. I did see the sign though. Love the color.
Thank Bug :)
>> This was in
>> many ways an accident of timing on the black
>> side of this equation. Which is not true of
>> Mormon meddling, IMO.
>
> I do hope that the black population will no longer be taken for granted
> after this by anyone.
Well, accidents are just... accidents. That was
my point: getting worked up into a lather for
those who were stupid enough to be shocked by
this doesn't do a lot of good. Especially when
the likelihood of this accident of timing is not
very likely to repeat itself. The Mormons on the
other hand are *not* going to give up unless we
do something about it. And shining the light on
their bigotry is as good a way as any to get
them to crawl back into their hole, IMO.
David Gartner
> Odd that you would single out blacks when 2 other groups were for it.
> Stranger yet that you would pass over the 2 largest supporting groups to
> do so.
I think one of us is black.
David W. Fenton
m:
I wonder why this time around it was so much more public? Is the
media reporting more fully? Are we more aware?
Or is there something different this time around?
The amount of money involved?
The fact that it involves couples who've already been married?
The fact that we're hearing about Mormon dissenters?
It seems to me that this latter item suggests that the LDS church
put the squeeze on somewhat harder than in previous efforts,
perhaps.
Ellen Evans
leroy dominique <leroy.d...@verizon.net> wrote:
[]
>I do hope that the black population will no longer be taken for granted
>after this by anyone.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gayblack8-2008nov08,0,1601616.story
I think folks are getting the message.
Ellen Evans
leroy dominique <leroy.d...@verizon.net> wrote:
[]
>Well this does impact them as well. You can get married in any state if
>you meet that state's criteria and go back home.
Actually, not. There is a long history of this not being the case in the
slightest. If you go to a state for the express of purpose of contracting
a marriage that is illegal in your state of residence, it's called venue
shopping, and it's not legal. If you contract a marriage in your state of
residence and then move somewhere the rules say you wouldn't have been
able to marry *there* (you marry your first cousin, say, or a 14 year old
girl), the state has a broad array of options on how to respond - it can
competely disallow the marriage, it can recognize certain rights under the
marriage and not others, etc. This is called the Strong Public Policy
exemption for the commerce clause, and has been settled case law for
decades.
The reason the Mormons and the K of C spent so much money on California is
that California is in many respects a trend leader for the country. They
hope if they can snuff it out here, they won't have to fight fires in
their own states later.
Ellen Evans
leroy dominique <leroy.d...@verizon.net> wrote:
>In article <gf2p0v$i9p$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> je...@panix.com (Ellen Evans) wrote:
>
>> In article <leroy.dominique-36...@news.verizon.net>,
>> leroy dominique <leroy.d...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> []
>>
>> >That's a rather fucked up thing to say. There's a bit, okay a lot, of
>> >bitterness aimed at black folks here that is rather odd.
>>
>> See, there's a problem. It's a demonstrable fact that the key change in
>> this election, demographically, vis-a-vis prop 8 is the much larger
>> percentage of black folks who voted, and those black folks also voted
>> overwhelmingly for prop 8. To point that out isn't necessarily bitterness
>> - it's fact finding. That's the case. And it's a case that many folks
>> simply weren't expecting.
>
>I think there's a bit more than fact finding going on.
Among some people, that's undoubtedly correct. But equally there are
among some folks on the other side (not you, but in the listserv thread I
referenced earlier) there is equally knee-jerk response to *any*
discussion of the role of black voters in bringing in Prop 8. And *that*
response is equally unhelpful as we try to figure out what to do next.
leroy dominique
David Gartner <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
42 is a nice number.
Ken Rudolph
> Did any of the no on prop 8 money attempt to reach blacks?
> latinos? others?
The No-on 8 side ran a tv ad towards the end featuring the Latino
stars of Ugly Betty making the case for fairness. That was a
specific response to the expected Latino support for the amendment.
I never saw any ads specifically targeted to the black community,
though maybe I wasn't watching any of the right channels.
Leroy, I'm sorry that I added to the sum of intolerance by seeming
to condemn the black community. It's just that when I read the
exit-poll statistics I was especially struck and puzzled by the
irony of blacks ignoring the horrors of the comparable miscegenation
laws; and I didn't at the time understand the explanatory dynamic.
--Ken Rudolph
JTEM
> I wonder why this time around it was so much more public?
More public? What the hell does that mean?
Frank McQuarry
> David Gartner:
>> Leroy Dominique:
>
>>> Odd that you would single out blacks when 2 other groups were
>>> for it. Stranger yet that you would pass over the 2 largest
>>> supporting groups to do so.
>
>> I think one of us is black.
>
>
I'm not!
Michael Thomas
> In article <m3d4h76...@fugu.mtcc.com>,
> Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>
>> The one that pleasantly surprised me is that
>> Asians were against 8 (at least last I heard).
>> Culturally they are quite conservative, and
>> homosexuality is far from accepted with open
>> arms. They are a very large minority in
>> California as well. How'd that happen?
>
> They're not from religious traditions that have by and large considered
> homosexuality a capital offense (the stigma against it in China was tied
> with Marxist bullshit).
I'm hardly an expert here, but my impression is that this
is much deeper rooted than Pinkoism. I thought that a lot
of cultural stuff of Red China was nothing more than a
retread of Chinese cultural norms that existed forever.
>The prevailing stereotypes about them are
> benign and often positive (Asians are bright, capable, hardworking,
> etc.). Being culturally conservative doesn't always mean sexually
> conservative. I would also suspect that they're more likely not to be
> regular church goers compared to people whose churches help them survive
> shit from the mainstream culture.
Again I'm no asian expert, but my impression is
that they are very, very repressed sexually.
Being a gay asian homosexual is pretty fucked
up on the family front from everything I've heard.
Which is why I find it all rather remarkable.
eric h
leroy dominique <leroy.d...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> If there is any silver lining, their likelihood of turning
>> out in record numbers again any time soon is about zilch.
>
>That's a rather fucked up thing to say. There's a bit, okay a lot, of
>bitterness aimed at black folks here that is rather odd. I mean, 7% of
>the yes votes were by blacks, while over 30% was by whites and over 9%
>by latinos. Did any of the no on prop 8 money attempt to reach blacks?
>latinos? others?
70 percent explains a lot of the bitterness. You won't find
that kind of margin in any other group except, well, white
evangelicals. And Mormons. And, OK, probably some others.
This is as good a time as any to point out why I miss Rev.
Wright. Trinity United was and is the one black megachurch in
Chicago that doesn't push homo-hatred.
As Mr. Morford points out, there is a significant lack of
agreement between AfAm churchgoers and homos on the marriage
issue. There's plenty of room to mend some fence there, and as
an early supporter of Mr. Obama who accepted the devil's
bargain of his being such a wuss on marriage issue, I figure I
got what I bargained for.
Looking ahead, I look to Mr. Obama to lead on this, but I
suspect we may well slide down the priority list, so I ain't
holding my breath.
In the meantime, it's more than fine by me if any Yes voter
wants to stay home the next time this comes up.
--
---
"Wake up, everybody."--McFadden/Whitehead/Carstarphen
Dennis Lewis
>
>... the California sister who left a church
Since she left, that implies that the pastor was allowed to remain.
Was it an enlightened congregation prior to his coming out? Or was it
Baptist?
JTEM
> As Mr. Morford points out, there is a significant lack of
> agreement between AfAm churchgoers and homos on
> the marriage issue. There's plenty of room to mend
> some fence there,
Um, I don't recall the gay community (which apparently
no longer includes any black people) throwing AfAm
churchgoers under the bus...
> Looking ahead, I look to Mr. Obama to lead on this,
In precisely the same way he didn't in California...
So how much time do you give him?
> but I suspect we may well slide down the priority list,
> so I ain't holding my breath.
Dude, don't pussy out on us...
Obama claims to find the time for a daily basketball
game, but he just could never find the time to directly
address the people who were supposedly lying about
him, misusing his words... using his name, likeness
and words against his will in the Yes-On-8 campaign.
Admit it, it's not that your rights as a citizen aren't a
priority, it's that throwing you under the bus is a
priority.
leroy dominique
Ken Rudolph <ke...@nospamkenru.net> wrote:
> Leroy, I'm sorry that I added to the sum of intolerance by seeming
> to condemn the black community.
Apology accepted even though it wasn't required. I understood what you
were trying to get at. I was just a bit surprised at the way it came
out.
> It's just that when I read the
> exit-poll statistics I was especially struck and puzzled by the
> irony of blacks ignoring the horrors of the comparable miscegenation
> laws;
I just keep thinking that that whole miscegenation thing only ended 40
years ago so everyone should still be aware of it. Religion does make
some people weird though. Marriage has a lot of religious entanglements
that are very hard to shake.
Leroy, watching Venus and Jankovic play the 3rd set of their semifinal
match (Venus up 31)
Jed Davis
> It's my understanding based on an earlier post by Ellen that the yes on
> 8 folks were spreading a great many lies as reasons to vote yes on 8
> (children being forced to attend a gay something or the other comes to
> mind now [not very clearly though]). Jed says that the no on 8 folks
> focused on whites when the yes folks didn't.
To clarify: this is something I've heard other people report; I haven't
seen the ads in question myself.
--
(let ((C call-with-current-continuation)) (apply (lambda (x y) (x y)) (map
((lambda (r) ((C C) (lambda (s) (r (lambda l (apply (s s) l)))))) (lambda
(f) (lambda (l) (if (null? l) C (lambda (k) (display (car l)) ((f (cdr l))
(C k))))))) '((#\J #\d #\D #\v #\s) (#\e #\space #\a #\i #\newline)))))
Jed Davis
> See, there's a problem. It's a demonstrable fact that the key change in
> this election, demographically, vis-a-vis prop 8 is the much larger
> percentage of black folks who voted, and those black folks also voted
> overwhelmingly for prop 8. To point that out isn't necessarily bitterness
> - it's fact finding. That's the case. And it's a case that many folks
> simply weren't expecting.
But, even if *all* the black voters had stayed home, the numbers are
still slightly in favor, though probably not by enough to avoid a
recount.
It's not as if a somewhat lower black turnout would have sent it down in
flames.
eric h
eric h <eh...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>70 percent explains a lot of the bitterness. You won't find
>that kind of margin in any other group except, well, white
>evangelicals. And Mormons. And, OK, probably some others.
Pam spelled it out for me.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8077
So enough blame. Time to go get more percents.
Jed Davis
> 70 percent explains a lot of the bitterness. You won't find
> that kind of margin in any other group except, well, white
> evangelicals. And Mormons. And, OK, probably some others.
Those who attend church (of whatever sort) at least weekly.
A bunch of explicitly political groups (Republicans, self-identified
conservatives, McCain voters, 2004 Bush voters, those who consider Obama
"too liberal", GWB fans, &c) for which this is not surprising.
Voters who approve of the war in Iraq (30%): 85% yes.
Voters who felt that the race of candidates was an "important factor" to
them (9%): 71% yes.
Voters who felt McCain would *not* continue Bush policies (41%): 79% yes.
Oh, hey: if Los Angeles County had voted the same way as the SF bay
area, Prop 8 would have failed.
Ellen Evans
leroy dominique <leroy.d...@verizon.net> wrote:
[]
>I just keep thinking that that whole miscegenation thing only ended 40
>years ago so everyone should still be aware of it. Religion does make
>some people weird though. Marriage has a lot of religious entanglements
>that are very hard to shake.
And, as the article I linked to pointed out, many, many people apparently
do not know that the Loving v. Virginia opinion specifically called
marriage a civil right. If you think of civil rights as being about jobs
and housing, the connection to marriage may not be completely clear. That
No on 8 was unable to make the connection for large numbers of people is a
clear failing. Part of that, of course, is that the fact that many no on
8 people were horribly surprised at the intensity of the support for the
proposition, and the response wasn't a coordinated, well-thought out
strategy - more like throwing things up to see if they would stick.
David W. Fenton
news:lcs1vxm...@panix5.panix.com:
> It's not as if a somewhat lower black turnout would have sent it
> down in flames.
Well, it's been argued that normal black turnout would have resulted
in a tossup:
http://www.slate.com/id/2203912/
On the other hand, this Daily Kos diary entry:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/7/34645/1235/704/656272
calls into question the numbers used in analyses like those on
Slate.
I don't know what to believe for sure. I'd sure like Nate Silver to
take a look at it in some detail.
Michael Thomas
> Oh, hey: if Los Angeles County had voted the same way as the SF bay
> area, Prop 8 would have failed.
Hypodeemic Nerdle
h) wrote this:
>http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8077
What a dismaying read. Still, thanks.
--
G.
Rebecca Ore
d...@sprynet.com (Dennis Lewis) wrote:
Her coming out, some New Age church in a shopping center was what one of
my nephews said.
Rebecca Ore
Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> Rebecca Ore <macog...@gmail.com> writes:
> > In article <m3d4h76...@fugu.mtcc.com>,
> > Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The one that pleasantly surprised me is that
> >> Asians were against 8 (at least last I heard).
> >> Culturally they are quite conservative, and
> >> homosexuality is far from accepted with open
> >> arms. They are a very large minority in
> >> California as well. How'd that happen?
> >
> > They're not from religious traditions that have by and large considered
> > homosexuality a capital offense (the stigma against it in China was tied
> > with Marxist bullshit).
>
> I'm hardly an expert here, but my impression is that this
> is much deeper rooted than Pinkoism. I thought that a lot
> of cultural stuff of Red China was nothing more than a
> retread of Chinese cultural norms that existed forever.
My impression from what I've read and from some of the SE Asians is that
mileage varies. Various flavors of Buddhism have been less than
accepting but I've also read that certain Emperors took very good care
of their favorites (including cutting off a sleeve so as not to disturb
his sleep). Somewhat the flavor of what being gay would have been among
hippies in the 1960s -- a bit wrong, psychological issues perhaps, not
completely okay, but not someone to out and out bash.
>
> >The prevailing stereotypes about them are
> > benign and often positive (Asians are bright, capable, hardworking,
> > etc.). Being culturally conservative doesn't always mean sexually
> > conservative. I would also suspect that they're more likely not to be
> > regular church goers compared to people whose churches help them survive
> > shit from the mainstream culture.
>
> Again I'm no asian expert, but my impression is
> that they are very, very repressed sexually.
> Being a gay asian homosexual is pretty fucked
> up on the family front from everything I've heard.
> Which is why I find it all rather remarkable.
Asian covers a range of cultures that vary from not as repressed as New
Englanders to sex industry promoters on a national basis.
Japanese have had m/m erotica for hundreds of years that apparently was
more accepted in their general literature than what was done in the West
(this from a semester of Japanese literature in translation).
I have this third hand, but one of my friends from Columbia U went to
Japan and had a Japanese lover. The lover's family seemed to have been
quite okay with their son having a male lover with a good job and who
was half-Asian and very tall. If family is important, then making
alliances with other families through children might trump one
particular child not likely to pass on genetic investments.