Why Do we even vote?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
The Sebastian Express said:
http://www.ncsu.edu/stud_affairs/glbt/pdfs/Prop 8 Report.pdf

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/7/34645/1235/704/656272

So no, Prop 8 was passed by a heavy White presence.
Click to expand...

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-01-...-marriage-ban-black-voters-lesbian-task-force

But an analysis of precinct-level voting data on Prop. 8 from Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco counties, which are home to nearly two-thirds of California's black voters, suggested that African American support for Prop. 8 was more likely about 58 percent.

That support among blacks is still well above the 52 percent Prop. 8 received from all voters in the Nov. 4 election. Much of that can be attributed to the strong religious tradition in the black community, where 57 percent of African American voters attend church at least once a week, compared with 42 percent of Californians overall.

"The study debunks the myth that African Americans overwhelmingly and disproportionately supported Proposition 8," Andrea Shorter, director of And Marriage for All, said in a statement. "But we clearly have work to do with, within and for African American communities, particularly the black church."

*shrug* - 58% is HUUUUUGE.
 
blazerboy30 said:
Uh, your own link (first one) says less than half of the white voters voted yes on 8. I'm pretty sure that means it wasn't passed by "heavy White presence".
Click to expand...

The first link also says that 67% of the total voters are White. The third link shows you that near 3.2 million white people voted yes, where as the total Latino and Asian vote combined is 1,512,183 yes votes - or actually less yes votes than White women (1,552,972) by themselves (White men had the most yes votes with 1,632,480). The Black turnout on the Prop 8 issue in the first link says they have the same presence as Asians, although they did vote 58% yes - but they are only 7% of the total vote.

So yes, it was a heavy White presence and vote that passed proposition 8.
 
Shooter said:
It was federal courts who declared abortion legal--effectively saying f--- you to every unborn child.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

There were 500,000 LEGAL abortions the year before Roe v. Wade was decided. Abortion was legal in NY and CA, among other states.
 
Denny Crane said:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-01-...-marriage-ban-black-voters-lesbian-task-force

But an analysis of precinct-level voting data on Prop. 8 from Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco counties, which are home to nearly two-thirds of California's black voters, suggested that African American support for Prop. 8 was more likely about 58 percent.

That support among blacks is still well above the 52 percent Prop. 8 received from all voters in the Nov. 4 election. Much of that can be attributed to the strong religious tradition in the black community, where 57 percent of African American voters attend church at least once a week, compared with 42 percent of Californians overall.

"The study debunks the myth that African Americans overwhelmingly and disproportionately supported Proposition 8," Andrea Shorter, director of And Marriage for All, said in a statement. "But we clearly have work to do with, within and for African American communities, particularly the black church."

*shrug* - 58% is HUUUUUGE.
Click to expand...

58% is huge, but not when it is only 58% of 7% of the total votes cast.
 
The Sebastian Express said:
58% is huge, but not when it is only 58% of 7% of the total votes cast.
Click to expand...

58% does speak, proportionally, that black voters overwhelmingly voted for prop 8. Reagan got 56% of the vote in his 2nd election, a landslide. 58% is HUUUUGE, as I said.
 
The Sebastian Express said:
The first link also says that 67% of the total voters are White. The third link shows you that near 3.2 million white people voted yes, where as the total Latino and Asian vote combined is 1,512,183 yes votes - or actually less yes votes than White women (1,552,972) by themselves (White men had the most yes votes with 1,632,480). The Black turnout on the Prop 8 issue in the first link says they have the same presence as Asians, although they did vote 58% yes - but they are only 7% of the total vote.

So yes, it was a heavy White presence and vote that passed proposition 8.
Click to expand...

Wow. That is some incredibly bad and faulty logic. If ONLY Whites had voted, Prop 8 would have failed. Your link and data show that. Yet somehow, it was "a heavy White presence and vote that passed proposition 8"??? Terrible logic. Absolutely terrible.

If no White voters had showed up to vote, then Prop 8 would have passed by an even wider margin. Yet somehow it was "a heavy White presence and vote that passed prop 8"???

Did I mention that was atrocious and false logic, with your own links contradicting your statement?
 
Last edited:
mook said:
I wouldn't worry about that if I were you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

If Mormons were legally allowed to discriminate against blacks until 1978 (well past the Civil Rights Movement), why shouldn't they be allowed to discriminate against gay people indefinitely? Bigotry is perfectly legal if you wrap it around the way you worship Invisible Sky Daddy.

There probably will be some law suits (it's America--we sue over everything) but I don't see them winning.
Click to expand...

I wonder what would have happened if Kimball didn't have that revelation. Interesting in my opinion.
 
mook said:
I wouldn't worry about that if I were you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

If Mormons were legally allowed to discriminate against blacks until 1978 (well past the Civil Rights Movement), why shouldn't they be allowed to discriminate against gay people indefinitely? Bigotry is perfectly legal if you wrap it around the way you worship Invisible Sky Daddy.

There probably will be some law suits (it's America--we sue over everything) but I don't see them winning.
Click to expand...

By the way, you did see the part about why I think churches SHOULD lose their tax exempt status, didn't you?
 
Churches (and other religious bodies) could and can legally decide who can be members. So the Mormon Church could legally bar African-Americans and can legally bar gays & lesbians FROM CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. But if a member of the church owns a secular business, he/she could not legally refuse to hire African Americans from the time the Civil Rights Act was passed. Since only 13 states prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, the businessperson can legally bar gays and lesbians from employment in a secular business in the other states. California is among the 13 so a member of the Mormon Church who owns a secular business in California cannot legally refuse to hire or otherwise discriminate against a qualified GLBT employee. (Obviously we know there are a lot of sneaky ways around anti-discrimination laws but the law still holds.)
 
bodyman5001 said:
By the way, you did see the part about why I think churches SHOULD lose their tax exempt status, didn't you?
Click to expand...

Hell yes they should pay taxes. I see no reason why some organization's wacky theory about what happens after you are dead and who made the planet should entitle them to tax-free status. If a church wants to set up a charity that's tax free, that's fine by me. But the money it collects that goes toward paying for pews and pulpits and pastors? That should definitely be taxed.
 
bodyman5001 said:
I wonder what would have happened if Kimball didn't have that revelation. Interesting in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I think the timing was hilarious. "Uh, guys, everybody thinks the Mormons are a bunch of morons. (It doesn't help that we worship an angel named Moroni. Somebody in Marketing really needs to get on re-branding that.) It's 1978. So, uh, I think God says the darkies are ok to be leaders now. His bad."

Way to be on the cutting edge of history, Utah.
 
bluefrog said:
I agree with you on this one
Click to expand...

So do I. We are talking about some tremendously wealthy institutions who are effectively subsidized by the rest of us (they get road service, garbage pickup, police and fire protection, etc.) and who very often use their wealth to influence political decisions and elections and/or to evade justice.

However, that is another fight.
 
[video=youtube;Ms0hugRkgv8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms0hugRkgv8[/video]

Eerily prophetic.
 
blazerboy30 said:
O...M...G I hope he is wrong. If the nation goes as Cali goes, we're all screwed.
Click to expand...

If the nation goes as Cali goes in this case, meaning that they won't allow a vote to deny a right to a minority group that is provided to a majority group, then I think we're ok. Lets not lose track of the fact in this discussion that the "will of people" was discrimination.

Six years ago, when my native land of Massachusetts approved gay marriage, I would have hoped that the rest of the nation would have caught up by now. Its going slow, but this case shows its getting there. I'm still waiting for a legally valid case against gay marriage and, from what I'm reading, so was the judge in this case.
 
Minstrel said:
if the will of the people was to enslave black people, should there be courts to overturn it? Almost everyone would say yes.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense. If almost everyone feels a certain way, wouldn't that be "the will of the people"?

I think the 2 cases represent different wills. The Arizona law is favored by a majority of Americans, while the California law is favored by a majority of bigots, but not a majority of Americans.
 
A 3rd battle of "wills" is moving forward, with Virginia winning a court decision to proceed suing to end the mandatory requirement to purchase health care insurance from private industry.
 
agoo101284 said:
If the nation goes as Cali goes in this case, meaning that they won't allow a vote to deny a right to a minority group that is provided to a majority group, then I think we're ok. Lets not lose track of the fact in this discussion that the "will of people" was discrimination.

Six years ago, when my native land of Massachusetts approved gay marriage, I would have hoped that the rest of the nation would have caught up by now. Its going slow, but this case shows its getting there. I'm still waiting for a legally valid case against gay marriage and, from what I'm reading, so was the judge in this case.
Click to expand...

Prop 8 is the least of the worries in Cali. This state is a disaster.
 
MARIS61 said:
This makes no sense. If almost everyone feels a certain way, wouldn't that be "the will of the people"?

I think the 2 cases represent different wills. The Arizona law is favored by a majority of Americans, while the California law is favored by a majority of bigots, but not a majority of Americans.
Click to expand...

bigots, how? I still don't personally see how people would think that a heterosexual couple is EXACTLY THE SAME as a homosexual one. There is a difference, biologically. maybe not socially or "lookin' at love" or whatever, but there is a difference. As far as "rights" are concerned, as far as California is concerned the rights of a civil union/domestic partnership = that of a married couple.

Again with the misinformation and hyperbole which permeate the discussion. The only thing in this debate is the semantic definition of "marriage". Honestly, I post my opinions on this matter just to clear up the mistruths spewed forth by the "No on H8" types out there. They are disgusting manipulators of truth.
 
Last edited:
MARIS61 said:
This makes no sense. If almost everyone feels a certain way, wouldn't that be "the will of the people"?
Click to expand...

Yes. Which is why I said that it's the will of the people to have checks on the will of the people. ;) We, as a society, want courts to prevent majority votes from enacting unconstitutional discrimination. We've purposely tied our own hands in certain ways, which I think is wise.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
bigots, how? I still don't personally see how people would think that a heterosexual couple is EXACTLY THE SAME as a homosexual one. There is a difference, biologically. maybe not socially or "lookin' at love" or whatever, but there is a difference. As far as "rights" are concerned, as far as California is concerned the rights of a civil union/domestic partnership = that of a married couple.

... The only thing in this debate is the semantic definition of "marriage".
Click to expand...

Agreed. Only a bigot would object to gay marriage in California since it is only a semantic difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top