Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority

News Type: Opinion — Seeded on Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:24 PM EST

Article Source: The New York Times

politics, democrats, republicans, gay-marriage, gay-rights, prop-8

Interesting analysis of why a majority of Black Voters voted for California's Prop. 8 and against Gay Marriage. It also discusses ways in which proponents for the rights of Gay Men and Women to Marry might effectively sway the opinion of these voters.

Published to:

noetical's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: Activism, Democracy, Democrats, Gut Check America, Heated Debate, Left of Center, Liberal Campaign, Mad For Rachel Maddow, Open Source Intelligence, Political Analysis, Politics in USA, Queer Agendas, The Bigger 2008 Election , US News and Views , Worldviews
Regions: New York

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

5.4

1.5

{"commentId":4237477,"authorDomain":"slincoln-wx"}

W Scott Lincoln

Oh no, you mentioned same-sex marriage and "moral" in the same sentence. The christianists might come after you!

In all seriousness though, this is a great article. Although it is unfortunate that they do not see the obvious similarity between the current civil rights struggled and the struggle they faced decades ago, this article sheds some light on some reasons why. I did find it surprising, however, that women were more likely than men to vote for the measure. Dealing with the population as a whole, women are more likely than men to support legal recognition of same-sex unions and marriage equality.

{"commentId":4237477,"threadId":"430807","contentId":"2162284","authorDomain":"slincoln-wx"}

3 votes

#1 - Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:26 AM EST

{"commentId":4237608,"authorDomain":"Boothby"}

Tim Boothby

It is an interesting article but it does overlook gender roles in some ethnic cultures, religion is a player to be certain, but there are cultural biases that can't be discounted, feelings among males for example that its "unmanly" or against a cultural image of "machismo."

Personally though, I'm at a loss to explain how the vote could go like it did in the state considered to be the "left coast."

{"commentId":4237608,"threadId":"430807","contentId":"2162284","authorDomain":"Boothby"}

2 votes

#2 - Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:04 AM EST

{"commentId":4237769,"authorDomain":"chrisb327"}

gordy327

Too many "right" thinkers got involved and misinformation was spread like wildfire. It looks like Conn & Mass is becoming the new "left coast".

{"commentId":4237769,"threadId":"430807","contentId":"2162284","authorDomain":"chrisb327"}

1 vote

#2.1 - Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:08 AM EST

{"commentId":4237816,"authorDomain":"Boothby"}

Tim Boothby

California's ban was a major surprise, and the fact that all 3 states with measures on a ballot voted to ban surprised the hell out of me. If I read the little color chart right 30 state constitutions ban same sex marriage, and with all four presidential and vice presidential candidates being on record as personally against it (with varying degrees of tap dancing) things have a lot farther to go that it appears on the surface.

{"commentId":4237816,"threadId":"430807","contentId":"2162284","authorDomain":"Boothby"}

1 vote

#2.2 - Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:34 AM EST

{"commentId":4237883,"authorDomain":"chrisb327"}

gordy327

State bans on gay marriage will eventually be challenged in court. The Supreme Court will eventuall step in to decide once & for all. The presidential & VP candidates opposed it just for political reasons-mainly to ensure votes. Palin is the only one who would endorse a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage. I'll bet Obama & Biden wouldn't really care if gay marriage was allowed.

{"commentId":4237883,"threadId":"430807","contentId":"2162284","authorDomain":"chrisb327"}

#2.3 - Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:15 AM EST

{"commentId":4237898,"authorDomain":"Boothby"}

Tim Boothby

<blockquote>I'll bet Obama & Biden wouldn't really care if gay marriage was allowed.</blockquote>

I hope that isn't the case, they've gone on record as personally against but that they would oppose an amendment, if they really don't care if gay marriage is allowed they should have the stones to say so. I'm hoping that the first change the new administration makes is honesty.

{"commentId":4237898,"threadId":"430807","contentId":"2162284","authorDomain":"Boothby"}

1 vote

#2.4 - Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:24 AM EST

{"commentId":4237958,"authorDomain":"chrisb327"}

gordy327

They are taking the middle ground by personally opposing gay marriage, but not backing any legislation to that effect. Basically they are playing it safe in regards to gay marriage, so they don't draw too much flak from 1 side.

{"commentId":4237958,"threadId":"430807","contentId":"2162284","authorDomain":"chrisb327"}

#2.5 - Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:07 AM EST

{"commentId":4241563,"authorDomain":"Boothby"}

Tim Boothby

Then they should be called on it, either they support equal right for all without reservation or they don't. How do you play it safe on recognizing the rights of others?

{"commentId":4241563,"threadId":"430807","contentId":"2162284","authorDomain":"Boothby"}

1 vote

#2.6 - Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:22 PM EST

{"commentId":4237903,"authorDomain":"bisceglia2000"}

John BiscegliaDeleted

{"commentId":4240949,"authorDomain":"seaqwa"}

RobinEv

Excellent analysis, indeed. Here's one of the lessons that Charles Blow says the No-on-8 campaign (and those that follow it) should learn:

Second, don’t debate the Bible. You can’t win. Religious faith is not defined by logic, it defies it. Instead, decouple the legal right from the religious rite, and emphasize the idea of acceptance without endorsement.
Then, make it part of a broader discussion about the perils of rigidly applying yesterday’s sexual morality to today’s sexual mores. Show black women that it backfires. The stigma doesn’t erase the behavior, it pushes it into the shadows where, devoid of information and acceptance, it become more risky.

The No-on-8 campaign understood this in theory. Their inept ad campaign tried to make the ballot measure about rights, but the campaign failed to make the point in a way that a majority of voters could understand, or -- and this is more important -- emotionally identify with.

{"commentId":4240949,"threadId":"430807","contentId":"2162284","authorDomain":"seaqwa"}

#4 - Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:37 PM EST

{"commentId":4250803,"authorDomain":"noetical"}

noetical

You're absolutely right. The passage you quoted is exactly why I posted this article. I made the mistake of getting into a conversation about Leviticus with someone while I was standing in line to vote...he brought up the Bible, but I took the bait. It was a conversation to nowhere fast (see my post about voting.)

{"commentId":4250803,"threadId":"430807","contentId":"2162284","authorDomain":"noetical"}

#4.1 - Mon Dec 1, 2008 5:42 PM EST

{"commentId":4300978,"authorDomain":"1landscaper"}

1landscaper

excellent article on strategy but I still say gay marriage is irrelevant

{"commentId":4300978,"threadId":"430807","contentId":"2162284","authorDomain":"1landscaper"}

2 votes

#5 - Fri Dec 5, 2008 8:20 AM EST

{"commentId":4312943,"authorDomain":"noetical"}

noetical

Irrelevant to whom?

As Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius, a Christian pholosopher from the sixth century, said in The Consolation of Philosophy, A.D. 524:

"Who would give a law to lovers? Love is unto itself a higher law."

I am not gay, and yet; I find the rights of others to be profoundly relevant to my life. Many Americans have and do feel the same. Following are some words to remember:

Samuel Adams:

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."

William F. Buckley, Jr.:

"We are so concerned to flatter the majority that we lose sight of how very often it is necessary, in order to preserve freedom for the minority, let alone for the individual, to face that majority down."

George Herbert Walker Bush:

"Freedom and the power to choose should not be the privilege of wealth. They are the birthright of every American."

Justice William O. Douglas:

"A people who extend civil liberties only to preferred groups start down the path either to dictatorship of the right or the left."

John Fitzgerald Kennedy:

"In giving rights to others which belong to them, we give rights to ourselves and to our country"

A. Philip Randolph:

"A community is democratic only when the humblest and weakest person can enjoy the highest civil, economic, and social rights that the biggest and most powerful possess."

{"commentId":4312943,"threadId":"430807","contentId":"2162284","authorDomain":"noetical"}

1 vote

#5.1 - Fri Dec 5, 2008 6:40 PM EST

{"canLink":false,"threadId":"430807","isPrivate":false}

NOETICAL

Backyard

Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: