Here's the craziest stat from the exit polling. In California, African-American voters voted in favor of Prop 8 and against marriage equality by a 69-31 margin. But 95% of them voted for Barack Obama, who had come out against Prop 8.
Dispatches from the Creation Wars
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Profile
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Search
Recent Comments
- Sesli Chat on America's Christian Colonies
- democommie@FuckAlanWestthatfuckingfucker.com on War Criminal Now a Republican Congressman
- democommie@FuckRonPaulthefuckingfucker.com on Ron Paul Rejects Evolution
- Stu on War Criminal Now a Republican Congressman
- democommie on Ron Paul Rejects Evolution
- Allison on Ron Paul Rejects Evolution
- DingoJack on America's Christian Colonies
- Robin on The Latest Attack on Planned Parenthood
- democommie on Closing Up Shop
- mote on Closing Up Shop
Recent Posts
- Closing Up Shop
- AIG and Wingnut on Wingnut Crime
- Behe and the Contingency of History
- Congratulations, Vic Hutchinson
- Big Bad Bob Enyart
- The Madness of Ron Wyatt
- Ellis Washington Projects About Projection
- Creationism on Dallas School Website
- Hovind Crony Blathers About Attenborough
- Not So Pyrrhic Victory in Texas
Blogroll
Science Blogs
- The Panda's Thumb
- Carl Zimmer
- The Austringer
- Evolution Blog
- De Rerum Natura
- Evolving Thoughts
- Preposterous Universe
- Butterflies and Wheels
- John Lynch
- Unscrewing the Inscrutable
- NCSE's Legal Blog
- Red State Rabble
- Thoughts From Kansas
- Appellate Blog
- Volokh Conspiracy
- Jack Balkin
- Legal Theory Blog
- ACS Blog
- Reason and Liberty
- Overlawyered
- Supreme Court Times
- Positive Liberty
- Reason's Hit and Run
- Andrew Sullivan
- Talking Points Memo
- Daily Kos
- Media Matters
- Patterico's Pontifications
- Classical Values
- Virginia Postrel
- Jim Anderson
- Strange Doctrines
- John Scalzi
- The Pryhills
- Temperantia
- Rev. Spork
- Electric Commentary
- Two Aarons
- Farkleberries
- Paul Phillips
- Henry Neufeld
- Talk.Origins
- Talk.Reason
- Antievolution.org
- National Center for Science Education
- Talk.Design
- Michigan Citizens for Science
Archives
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
Other Information
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.
Ed's Audio and Video
Declaring Independence podcast feed
YearlyKos 2007
Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement
Audio of Greg Raymer Interview
E-mail Policy
Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.
My Ecosystem Details
« Open Thread: Post Your Thoughts | Main | Obama Wins. Now What? »
Crazy Poll of the Election
Posted on: November 5, 2008 9:02 AM, by Ed Brayton
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Politics
Comments
Which just goes to show you how homophobia is still an acceptable prejudice in more demographic groups than polite society is willing to admit.
Posted by: gary l. day | November 5, 2008 9:48 AM
I could almost take this as a good sign, that people are starting to vote on offices and ballot measures based on their individual merits rather than pure party lines...except for typical black opposition to gay rights.
One step at a time, I guess.
Posted by: schism | November 5, 2008 9:50 AM
Agreement with gary. Unfortunately, there is no law against the curbing of civil liberties against a defined group of people via a ballot measure. The only thing that seem (to me) to do is make the discriminated group feel even more persecuted, since they understand that it is the majority of citizens in their state who feel they are not worthy, as opposed to some smaller collection of representatives.
Posted by: Umlud | November 5, 2008 9:53 AM
Every minority needs a scapegoat group they can deem even lower on the totem pole. In Poland, they have Lithuanian jokes, I imagine.
If Prop 8 had a clause specifically discriminating against homosexual Hispanic Jews, African-American voters would have for the measure 98-2.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 5, 2008 10:09 AM
I disagree with schism, this isn't a good sign. A distressingly large number of people are still voting based on their prejudices.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | November 5, 2008 10:09 AM
Gee, people actually think for themselves. What a concept.
Posted by: Dude | November 5, 2008 10:15 AM
I wonder if they'd have voted along similar lines for a proposition overturning the effects of Loving v. Virginia.
Bigotry is bigotry, and it is nothing less than profoundly shameful that the members of a severely victimized class would so consistently vote to victimize others instead of empathizing with them and voting against further bigotry. Human nature is rotten sometimes.
~David D.G.
Posted by: David D.G. | November 5, 2008 10:33 AM
Dude,
You have got it totally wrong. Those people are not thinking for themselves. They are following the lead of their churches. Now that is concept.
Posted by: amar | November 5, 2008 10:39 AM
How much did the campaign for voting No on Proposition 8 use language like bigotry and prejudice?
Posted by: t_p_hamilton | November 5, 2008 10:39 AM
Increasingly I'm hearing calls for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely. From both the Right and the Left people have been telling me the government has no more call to recognize marriage than it does any other religious practice. They say we should convert all existing marriages to civil unions, with all the same rights and responsibilities as current marriages, and make it available to anyone. They say leave marriage as a purely private affair that confers no special rights, like a bar mitzvah or baptism.
Hearing that from liberals is nothing new. But more and more I hear conservatives saying the same thing. Personally I feel it's not an ideal solution. Though I could certainly live with it as a fair compromise. The important thing to me in such statements is that they show people recognize the plight of homosexuals and are trying to find a fair solution. It makes me hopeful for a more tolerant future.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 5, 2008 10:41 AM
Abby,
I guess I don't understand what the differences between marriage and civil union are. Any of it practical? If it's a question of label 'only', then one has to wonder what business the state has in systematically stigmatizing a section of the population.
If civil unions carry all the benefits of "marriage", then what's the disadvantage of making everything a civil union, and letting private individuals call their parties whatever they want? "marriage" or "floobtiage" or whatever.
Posted by: TOD | November 5, 2008 12:00 PM
While I agree with the concept of reserving the term "marriage" for the churches and having the government grant privileges through civil unions, the problem is that's not really workable.
There are 50 states, each of which probably uses the terms "married" or "marriage" hundreds or thousands of times in their laws. Going through and changing all those is not feasible. One could of course write a new law stating that everywhere the law says "married" it means "joined in a civil union", but then you're not really changing the terminology after all. And we have too many cases already where words mean different things in legal language than they do in ordinary language.
Posted by: Johnny Vector | November 5, 2008 12:14 PM
This is not surprising. Bill Maher has had the temerity to point out that blacks are very homophobic.
Posted by: NT | November 5, 2008 12:20 PM
Johnny,
Does that mean that currently if you are "joined in civil union" then anywhere in law where it states "marriage", the same laws apply?
Posted by: TOD | November 5, 2008 1:16 PM
Obama did say that he was against Prop 8, but is it not also true that he says he things marriage should only be between a man and a woman? (Someone please correct me if I am wrong). That's a heck of a mixed message, in my view. Biden was the same during the VP debate - he waxed movingly and eloquently about the rights and the dignity of gay people and gay relationships - and then capped it off by saying that he doesn't think they should be allowed to marry. Does not compute.
Looking at the CNN exit poll link, the very encouraging sign is that 61% of voters under 29 years old voted against the amendment. The overall Latino vote was only 47% against, but the Latino under-29 vote was 59% against. CNN doesn't have the African American vote broken down by age.
Justice WILL come on this issue. As a Californian, I am saddened that it is deferred for this election.
Posted by: bfish | November 5, 2008 2:01 PM
TOD,
What I mean is you would have to make that substitution if you wanted to have civil unions provide all the benefits of marriage without the name. And I suspect it would be all but impossible to actually make that substitution and have it work. Perhaps one of the actual lawyers here can correct me, but it seems to me like trying to do that would be an excellent way to add another whole layer of confusion to the law.
So it makes more sense to just keep the term "marriage", and open it up to same-sex and opposite-sex (and ambiguous-sex) couples.
Posted by: Johnny Vector | November 5, 2008 2:06 PM
Pam Spaulding at Pam's House Blend has a very good piece up cautioning against scapegoating the African American community for the Yes on 8 results. She says it better than I can, so I'll just link to it. (The upshot: 70% of blacks voted for Prop 8... but blacks represent only 6.2% of of California's population. The big demographic that killed us was voters over 65... and the big money source that killed us was the Mormon Church, one of the whitest institutions in America.)
Posted by: Greta Christina | November 5, 2008 2:41 PM
TOD, civil unions and marriage as they exist today are definitely distinct entities. Civil unions are created by individual states and the benefits they convey vary. But no state gives civil unions all the same benefits as marriage. (Not even California, though it came real close.) Further they are not recognized by the federal government. So no federal benefits, like the right to sponsor your partner for citizenship, are extended to civil unions. Finally, many company policies are worded such that they apply only to married couples. So, people in civil unions sometimes miss out there too.
Johnny Vector nailed my reason for saying upgrading civil unions to a equivalent to marriage and converting all existing marriages over is not ideal. It's impractical. I'll also add that such a move would still likely cause strong public outcry. I like it as an indicator of the direction people thoughts are moving. I just think in the end it'll be easier and more practical to help folks see that a civil marriage and their religious marriage are separate constructs.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 5, 2008 3:25 PM
Obama was milquetoast on Prop 8. He stated over and again that marriage was between a man and a woman. His only rejection of Prop 8 was that restriction of rights shouldn't be part of a constitution.
Totally ok to favor the restriction of those rights, just don't write it down.
Posted by: bullet | November 5, 2008 3:35 PM
Abby:
...to help folks see that a civil marriage and their religious marriage are separate constructs.
Get the wedding industry on board with that idea. They will sell the hell out of it.
Posted by: bullet | November 5, 2008 3:37 PM
Some enterprising gay-rights activist ought to get an anti-miscegenation Proposition on the next ballot, along with an equal marriage rights Proposition. Perhaps the juxtaposition of the two would clue black Conservative Christians in on what's really going on here.
Posted by: Shygetz | November 5, 2008 3:45 PM
Heh, you're right about that bullet. Coincidently I worked in the bridal market for six years. I got out when I grew a conscience and may have burned a couple bridges on the way. Thinking back I believe it was that ad encouraging women to "give him a gift he'll never forget" by getting plastic surgery before the wedding was what finally pushed me over the edge. Lousy con artist bilking struggling couples of money they don't have for things they don't need. Easy financing options available.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 5, 2008 4:09 PM
This is the problem with Court-based solutions. If the law gets too far in front of public opinion, justice gets pushed aside in favor of rights being dished out by the majority when and if they get around to it.* In any case, since the Supreme Court is not going to act on the issue, and the Judicial and the legislative solutions are both going to be piecemeal, go for the legislative victory which is much more difficult to overturn.
The KindergartenKopinator no longer can duck the issue by claiming he is waiting for a Court to act. The issue needs to be pushed in the lege and pushed hard. If he vetoes it again, the California folk seem to have that recall thing figured out.
*No, I don't think rights should be dependent on the whim of the majority. Since the Supremes are not going to find sexual orientation to be a protected class, however, we work with the Constitution we have, not the one we might like. Just means we need to work harder.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 5, 2008 5:14 PM
As soon as Pennsylvania came in for Obama, I started looking at the ballot initiatives for the various states as CNN had a nice page for that. If you needed something to get you off the 'victory' high that was a nice page: http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/
The list highlighted how much more needs to be done, in particular in terms of sexual orientation bigotry.
I don't think the government should get involved, but at the same time their lack of involvement should be entirely premised on 'we don't give a shit about who you are doing what with' as that is none their business. If there is differentiation of some form of union between people in some way there shouldn't be any discrimination or questions asked as to what structure that union takes - this goes beyond gay or lesbians being discriminated against at least if you look beyond a pragmatic minimum.
And it still blows the mind that Prop 8 could be defeated, as well as Florida Ammendment 2, and Arkansas Initiative 1 could pass.
Posted by: RSM | November 5, 2008 8:45 PM
"Every minority needs a scapegoat group they can deem even lower on the totem pole. In Poland, they have Lithuanian jokes, I imagine."
Actually, no. We have Jewish jokes, but they portray Jews as cunning and shrewd, not dumb - so these jokes are rather a reflection of the Polish minority complex w/r to Jews.
Lithuanians are hardly noticed in Poland outside the northeastern edge of the country.
However, many Poles believe that black people are dumb and lazy (pure racism), which maybe fits better to what you seek.
Posted by: Roman Werpachowski | November 6, 2008 3:25 AM