Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, and I read the actual study. I'm not attributing it to race alone. Religion is a given. And obviously skin color does not medically predispose someone to a particular belief, so there is always a mediating variable between race and political ideology. But the issue is that AA are more religious, and so when Obama runs he is going to bring a heavy AA turnout. The AA community has to be accountable for its beliefs like any other group. And 58% against is bad. It is not excusable because Latinos edged them out by a point (although I really am not persuaded by the regression analysis in that study). It stands on its own.

Okay, if you're not persuaded by the statistics, until you can post credible information that you do believe, there's really not a point in me discussing this further with you, is there?

Also, focusing on holding people "accountable" instead of trying to address the root causes and work to change them is the entire problem.

1. Anger is no substitute for thought. You are getting angry and because of that I think you are not hearing what I have to say. I am not Bill O'Reilly. My words stand for themselves.

2. I think the exit poll data is more credible, and if I thought you understood regression analysis we could talk more on why. But it doesn't matter because even if we accept the 58% number, it's a bad number. And I don't care whether hispanics edged them out or not, and I don't think being substantially better than 7th Day Adventists is an excuse. I don't hold any sway over those groups, but if you posted on Hispanics I would be unhappy with them, too.

3. Yes, we need to hold people accountable for their decisions. Would you not hold whites accountable for discrimination against black people? Would you only look at the root causes, say white poverty or their churches? No. You and history hold white people accountable for racism.

4. The fact is that religion and AA are intertwined. Black civil rights leaders are for the most part black ministers. You know it, I know it. The hearts and minds of the black community will be changed when those ministers see things a different way. And to address it we are going to have to persuade the same ministers, whatever diagnosis we put on it.

5. Lastly, and I can't say this enough, I don't care whether the AA vote ranks 1st 3rd or 10th in the damage it did on prop 8. Homophobia in the black community needs to be addressed. It is an issue. If you are black, you know what I mean.

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, and I read the actual study. I'm not attributing it to race alone. Religion is a given. And obviously skin color does not medically predispose someone to a particular belief, so there is always a mediating variable between race and political ideology. But the issue is that AA are more religious, and so when Obama runs he is going to bring a heavy AA turnout. The AA community has to be accountable for its beliefs like any other group. And 58% against is bad. It is not excusable because Latinos edged them out by a point (although I really am not persuaded by the regression analysis in that study). It stands on its own.

Okay, if you're not persuaded by the statistics, until you can post credible information that you do believe, there's really not a point in me discussing this further with you, is there?

Also, focusing on holding people "accountable" instead of trying to address the root causes and work to change them is the entire problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thank you. Based on this, I identified the original research referred to in the story: http://as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/marriagedivides.pdf

Unfortunately I am not really comforted by it. First, the study still predicts 58% support for prop 8. That's not great. Second, the evidence used to contradict the exit poll is not better exit poll data. They are making statistical inferences on the behavior of black voters in precincts based on the overall vote totals in that precinct. Check out Figure 2, and you will see that this is far from a slam dunk conclusion. And even this study concludes: "Nevertheless, the analysis here indicates that those hoping to advance the cause of same?sex marriage must contend with a substantial gap in support between Latinos and whites on one hand and African Americans on the other—a divide that has only increased since the nation’s attention turned in earnest to the issue in 2003."

And there is truth in that last statement. I wish it were not true, but it is. There is a gap between the positions of black and white Americans on this issue, and if it is more like 60% or 70% it's still a big deal.

Have you read this article? http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2009/01/prop-8-and-blaming-the-blacks/6548/

A big problem this country has is that people are prone to attribute everything to race and race alone. The problem has more to do with religion than race. That should be the focus instead of skin color.

Also, the big focus is black vs everyone else. While black support for prop 8 was estimated at 58%, Latino support was estimated at 59%. The Latino population in CA is also much larger than the black population in CA. Why is this getting thrown in the shadows?

Yes, and I read the actual study. I'm not attributing it to race alone. Religion is a given. And obviously skin color does not medically predispose someone to a particular belief, so there is always a mediating variable between race and political ideology. But the issue is that AA are more religious, and so when Obama runs he is going to bring a heavy AA turnout. The AA community has to be accountable for its beliefs like any other group. And 58% against is bad. It is not excusable because Latinos edged them out by a point (although I really am not persuaded by the regression analysis in that study). It stands on its own.

WHY?

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I find the black community's staunch and undying support for "traditional marriage" just a teensy bit hypocritical.

Again, WHY?

what is with white people blaming black people for everything? why does race predispose someone to voting for or against marriage equality?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thank you. Based on this, I identified the original research referred to in the story: http://as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/marriagedivides.pdf

Unfortunately I am not really comforted by it. First, the study still predicts 58% support for prop 8. That's not great. Second, the evidence used to contradict the exit poll is not better exit poll data. They are making statistical inferences on the behavior of black voters in precincts based on the overall vote totals in that precinct. Check out Figure 2, and you will see that this is far from a slam dunk conclusion. And even this study concludes: "Nevertheless, the analysis here indicates that those hoping to advance the cause of same?sex marriage must contend with a substantial gap in support between Latinos and whites on one hand and African Americans on the other—a divide that has only increased since the nation’s attention turned in earnest to the issue in 2003."

And there is truth in that last statement. I wish it were not true, but it is. There is a gap between the positions of black and white Americans on this issue, and if it is more like 60% or 70% it's still a big deal.

Have you read this article? http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2009/01/prop-8-and-blaming-the-blacks/6548/

A big problem this country has is that people are prone to attribute everything to race and race alone. The problem has more to do with religion than race. That should be the focus instead of skin color.

Also, the big focus is black vs everyone else. While black support for prop 8 was estimated at 58%, Latino support was estimated at 59%. The Latino population in CA is also much larger than the black population in CA. Why is this getting thrown in the shadows?

Yes, and I read the actual study. I'm not attributing it to race alone. Religion is a given. And obviously skin color does not medically predispose someone to a particular belief, so there is always a mediating variable between race and political ideology. But the issue is that AA are more religious, and so when Obama runs he is going to bring a heavy AA turnout. The AA community has to be accountable for its beliefs like any other group. And 58% against is bad. It is not excusable because Latinos edged them out by a point (although I really am not persuaded by the regression analysis in that study). It stands on its own.

You had to be in California to see the ads the Mormons funded -- they were truly disgusting, and they ran CONSTANTLY. There were probably 25 pro-8 ads to every no-on-8 ad.

Money bought that particular act of enshrined state-based discrimination.

Anonymous wrote:

Funding is one thing but I don't buy into the fact that the majority of Latinos and Evangelicals voted a certain way because the Mormons financed a campaign.

You don't think campaigning can sway a person's opinion? I'm not saying people who were 100% in support of same-sex marriage had their minds changed, but when advertising tactics are employed to appeal to a person's religiosity, they are quite effective.

If it were true that campaigning had no influence on how people vote, neither President Obama nor Mr. Romney would need to campaign. They could just chill until Nov. 4.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which if funny because the Mormons took a hell of a lot of blame for the prop 8 issues and they have an even smaller percentage of voters.

Well wasn't that because many estimated that a large percentage (anywhere from 40 to 77 percent) of funding for the campaign for Prop 8 came from Mormons, specifically Mormons in Utah?

I am happy to be proven wrong, if the information is incorrect and you have the correct figures.


http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/10/the-mormon-money-behind-proposition-8/209748/

Funding is one thing but I don't buy into the fact that the majority of Latinos and Evangelicals voted a certain way because the Mormons financed a campaign.

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I find the black community's staunch and undying support for "traditional marriage" just a teensy bit hypocritical.

Frankly, I find the white community's staunch and undying support for "traditional marriage" just a teensy bit hypocritical.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bristol-palin-rips-president-obama-listening-daughters-malia-sasha-supporting-gay-marriage-article-1.1075816

Anonymous wrote:Which if funny because the Mormons took a hell of a lot of blame for the prop 8 issues and they have an even smaller percentage of voters.

Well wasn't that because many estimated that a large percentage (anywhere from 40 to 77 percent) of funding for the campaign for Prop 8 came from Mormons, specifically Mormons in Utah?

I am happy to be proven wrong, if the information is incorrect and you have the correct figures.


http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/10/the-mormon-money-behind-proposition-8/209748/

Who the fuck cares? Because even if this referendum doesn't pass, the world is changing, whether you like it or not. The older bigoted generation will pass away and the younger open-minded folks will take over. Gay marriage will be legal and protected across the entire country and you won't be able to stop it.

Which if funny because the Mormons took a hell of a lot of blame for the prop 8 issues and they have an even smaller percentage of voters.

Anonymous wrote:
I can and I'm very happy to do so. Also, I'd like to point out that black people make up a little more than 6 percent of California's population, so the blame they received for the passage of Prop 8 was both laughable and predictable.

And blacks make up only 29% of Maryland's population. Since it is unlikely that they will vote uniformly, it will also be unlikely that they will be responsible for whatever the result will be. The entire population of the state should take the credit and/or blame for whatever the result will be. Especially those that do not come out to vote.

Anonymous wrote:Funny, the Post story is a reaction to the gay marriage thing from lots of different people, not just black people. OP's subject line doesn't give that impression at all.

Because when you're trying to irrationally make one group of people the scapegoat, little details like the truth don't matter!