Work to do

In the exit poll he cites 51% of Latinos voted "Yes" on Proposition 8. So to say "every ethnic group supported it", considering he's using the exit polls as data, is a bit dishonest. Still African Americans were the only ethnic group listed with a decisive majority on the issue.

The main thing I would guess is that African Americans in California have higher church attendance than average for the state. California's church attendance rate in general is low.

If you look at Florida's Amendment 2, also banning gay marriage, African American votes are more similar to other groups. AA's had the highest majority saying "yes", but it was only 7% higher than Latinos and 11% higher than white voters. While in Arkansas an initiative to ban gays from adopting had slightly less African American support than white support.

In this country Same-sex-marriage is more supported by irreligious people and irreligious people are disproportionately white or Asian. Latinos are somewhat more irreligious, taken as an average, than black voters. However in a state where whites or Latinos are mostly religious, like Arkansas, the difference might well evaporate.

Basically I'd take most everything Andrew Sullivan says with a grain of salt.

Posted by Thomas R | November 5, 2008 7:00 AM

Exactly. I'm over the yuck part, but I still don't get along all that well with gay men. (Lesbians, on the other hand, are a blast.) But whatever. If I decided to forbid everyone I don't like from getting married, then I'd be a bigger asshole than I am already.

Posted by matt | November 5, 2008 7:04 AM

I'm guessing what's needed is more and/or better gay outreach to black churches. What you're calling "this shit," Ta-Nehisi, is a social conservatism rooted in religious commitments (as Thomas R says above) which, overall, have played a key role in sustaining African-American communities through centuries of oppression and, of course, were the springboard for the Civil Rights Movement. All that's to the good. For some reason, it hasn't "clicked" yet with a majority of African-American churchgoers that marriage equality is a continuation of their own struggles for civil rights. It will, though; this latest struggle, whatever the fate of Prop. 8, is being won much faster than anyone would have predicted even five years ago. Good-hearted people who haven't yet come around on this issue need to be coaxed, educated and reassured, and they WILL come around.

Posted by Jefferson Smith | November 5, 2008 7:15 AM

We have also become disconnected from the idea that our civil rights exist, not only to protect those who find themselves in the minority by accident, but also (and perhaps more importantly) those who are in the minority though acts of conscience: the political views they express, the faith the follow, whom they choose to love, etc.

Proposition 8 tells California's gays and lesbians, "Yes, you can marry, but only if you pretend you feel things that you do not feel in your heart." It's equivalent to telling Baptists that they can marry, but only if they convert to Catholicism.

Posted by Tony Comstock | November 5, 2008 7:28 AM

Looks like Prop 8 will go through, not just with the votes of blacks. It's still terribly depressing, though.

I'm guessing what's needed is more and/or better gay outreach to black churches.

So gay people just need to work harder to convince people they need rights? You understand how frustrating that is?

Posted by Persia | November 5, 2008 7:45 AM

What does this say about bigotry generally in the black community? Why does "religious" mean "intolerant" and "willing to dictate how others should live through force of law"?

With O in the WH and Prop 8 passing, we have the opportunity to dig deeper and push harder. We elected him, now let's listen to him:

"This victory alone is not the change we seek -- it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were."

Posted by ewk | November 5, 2008 7:48 AM

Interesting. Just talked to my brother last night, a pretty conservative black Christian, who voted for Obama this election year but said he'd thought under an Obama presidency we'd see more progress in homosexual rights which was "bad." Honestly, it's probably someplace I might have been a few years ago or even a few months ago had I not been exposed to the broader thought of people in the blogosphere, friends who challenged my beliefs, and a Christian liberal arts college that persistently questioned how we as Christians could be against people having the right to marry. I think perhaps the Christian committment is seen as being incompatible with supporting or allowing gay marriage, when in reality that is a fallaciy that has been promoted by right wing Christian's like James Dobson. I think for a lot of conservative Christian's, and here I would say black Christians, it is hard for them to step outside of sometimes well-intentioned convictions because of a lack of exposure. And this is not meant to excuse bigotry, but I think ignorance is often fed and strengthened by a lack of exposure to people you know and respect who are different from you. This is not to say that black people knowing gay people or more people who support gay marriage will prevent homophobia in the black community, but I do think that there is a large religious base in Af Am communities that is very conservative on issues like gay marriage and until more work is done in promoting the idea that you can be a Christian and support the right of homosexuals to marry, that doing so doesn't make you a "liberal" or a bad Christian or someone who is caving in to the "gay agenda", but a person who has weighed the cost of bigotry and not found it worthwhile for our nation or one's self to participate in, has found opposition to gay marriage to be something, as a Christian, that is unethical, until wee see a paradigm shift I think we will continue to see large numbers of blacks in opposition to homosexual marriage. Its saddening and a little disheartening, particularly today as Prop 8 passes, James Dobson and the Focus on the Family crazies celebrate stifling the "gay agenda" and justice is undone. Why are the loudest Christians so often on the side of injustice?

Anyways, just some thoughts.

Posted by Amaryah | November 5, 2008 7:52 AM

This makes me so sad. The joy that I felt last night has been scaled back this morning as I realize that Prop 8 is almost certainly going to pass. My aunt and her partner have been together living in CA for over ten years, and were waiting to decide on marriage until after the vote. I was so excited at the chance to celebrate their love as a family at a wedding, and am am overcome with sadness and anger that even in a state like CA the majority of the electorate feels it necessary to discriminate against gays. I understand the sentinment that history is moving in the right direction and that soon enough Gays will be allowed to marry. But today that just doesn't feel consoling.

Posted by cd | November 5, 2008 7:56 AM

Brilliant post; but you might want to re-read this sentence:

If someone wants to give me a reason why gay people shouldn't be able to marry that doesn't, at its root, involve boil down to "yuck," I guess I'd love to hear it.

Posted by Wells | November 5, 2008 8:07 AM

Deleted--now, you don't have to read. Or comment, for that matter.

Posted by Shannon from San Diego, California | November 5, 2008 8:10 AM

I don't see how believing people choose to be homosexuals supports hmosexuals not being able to marry.

Posted by Amaryah | November 5, 2008 8:20 AM

Were women and blacks people that "chose" to live in a country where they couldn't vote back in the day? What about people who "choose" to be Christian? "Choose" to be Democrat? Welcome to the transformation from victim to persecutor.

"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pontius Pilate.

Posted by ewk | November 5, 2008 8:24 AM

@Shannon:

What rubbish. I'm African-American, straight, I live in California (voted against Prop. 8, thank you), and I think you're talking absolute nonsense. "Most black folk in CA believe homosexuals choose to be homosexual?" Give me a break. What a straw man. Gay people are asking you for the right to marry and live in peace and *this* is what you come back with?

TNC is absolutely on the mark with this one: African-Americans have got to get it together, recognize when the same props that were used against us are being used against other people, and emphatically say no. Of all people in this country, we have a special moral obligation to do so.

Posted by C.Michol | November 5, 2008 8:30 AM

Ewk and Amaryah,

I deleted the comment above you. People can disagree. But I am trying to crack down on trolling.

Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | November 5, 2008 8:31 AM

I really think it's much more of a generational thing than a racial thing. Yesterday at the school where I teach, we had a mock election which included a ballot initative on gay marriage. The (95% black) student population voted against a constitutional ban. I don't see a lot of homophobia in this younger generation- certainly much less than I saw when I was in high school 15 years ago. I don't think my students are that atypical. In a decade or so, this will not be a controversial issue.

Posted by dan | November 5, 2008 8:35 AM

I think one reason many religious folks oppose gay marriage has to do with a confusion between the religious and legal aspects of marriage. We debated this issue in my Rhetoric class, and many of my (mostly Catholic) students were worried that legalizing gay marriage would mean an intrusion of gov't policy into the church; churches, they thought, would be forced to legitimize behavior they felt contradicted their religious teachings. Interestingly, many of them felt that marriage--for anybody, gay or straight--should be a purely religious institution; they wanted the state involved only in civil unions. Works for me.

Posted by Zak | November 5, 2008 8:46 AM

i'm going to mention a silver lining to this, that's not going to give any consolation to gay people or those (like myself) who want to see gay marriage legal and common.

here it is:

whether you think the black community is right or wrong on this issue, it made its voice heard.

the days of its silence are over. it is now an electoral force to be reckoned with.

and when people disagree about an issue, and both sides feel fully enfranchised and make use of their votes, then one side is going to lose.

that's just normal politics on most issues. but it is a new phase for the black electorate.

as far as the gay marriage issue goes, the demographics are on our side. even if prop 8 passes today, it will be repealed in a landslide 10 years from now. and i'm not sure how enforceable it will be until then.

but as far as the full enfranchisement of black americans go, a sad day for gay marriage is just one aspect of a huge, huge glorious day for post civil-war reconstruction.

Posted by kid bitzer | November 5, 2008 8:47 AM

Blacks and whites and Latinos and Asians, and so on are not interested in dictating the terms of love between two individuals as you word it.

A little intellectual honest instead of dishonesty would be appreciated.

Gay peope, straight people, Bi people and Asexual people can Love all they want and who ever they want.

They can't marry. That you interpret they can't marry shows you either refused to consider the other side's claim or you just are incapable of seeing it because you are so entrenched in your own viewpoint.

I understand your viewpoint, but what disturbs me is how I and others are portrayed as voting "against civil rights".

It's not a right of a man to marry another man. Or a woman a woman.

Marriage does not equal love. There is naturally some element of disapproval in the vote to refuse to expand the definition of marriage, and I think that is what makes this issue so divisive. Many people are genuinely pissed off (and hurt) that others consider their relationships less than ideal at best, or morally wrong on the other end of the scale.

But that doesn't change things. As long as a man and a woman are the means to procreation, the foundation of marriage will be a man and a woman.

So here we are with one side insisting it's about two people loving each other, with the other side insisting its about the traditional concept of marriage.

The the simple fact is, the outcome of this vote does one thing and one thing only. It re-affirms the traditional concept of marriage. You can still love who you love. You just don't get to change what marriage means for everyone else just because you want access to it.

Marriage is what it is, not what you suggest it should be.

Posted by sam | November 5, 2008 8:55 AM

I'm happy to see this country finally beginning to look beyond color (or focusing more on the color of green at least), but I'm disappointed the same cannot be said of sexuality. This measure, along with those passed in Arizona and Florida read as further prove that one form of discrimination is taking the place of another.

I'm not surprised Black people help put Proposition 8 over the top. Black people can quote Sodom and Gomorrah all day long, but conveniently dance over The Story of Ham.

This is why I pray Bible literalism will wane over time.

Posted by Michael | November 5, 2008 9:00 AM

Sam,

Don't forget that there are rights attached to being married that have nothing to do with procreation. Tax credits. Favourable terms to get credit from financial institutions. Authority to make medical decisions for the other person.

Also, many people get married even though they don't intend (or are not able) to have children. Their marriages are founded on love, just as a same sex marriage is. Fit that into your definition of what marriage "is", before we continue this discussion.

Posted by Zoe | November 5, 2008 9:01 AM

"Marriage is what it is, not what you suggest it should be."

Yes because the history of marriage hasn't changed in the least since its formation.

Posted by Michael | November 5, 2008 9:03 AM

sam wrote, As long as a man and a woman are the means to procreation, the foundation of marriage will be a man and a woman.

Oh come on. We let men and women too old to bear children marry. We let men and women who don't intend to have children, and don't, marry. We let men and women who are sterile marry. And the crazed stigma against "illegitimate" children has pretty much collapsed, as the statistics show. So it's nuts to think that marriage has to be only for straight couples because it's about procreation. It's not. It's about a whole package of legal benefits.

Posted by Don | November 5, 2008 9:03 AM

Excellent post, Ta-Nehisi.

One of the great moments in John Sayles's Lone Star is a conversation between 2 white soldiers on the Army base, one of whom is telling the other that he's just gotten engaged to an African-American sergeant:

Mickey: Think her family's gonna be okay that you're a white guy?
Cliff: They think any woman over 30 who isn't married is a lesbian. She figures, they'll be so relieved that I'm a man...

Mickey: Yeah, it's always heartwarming to see a prejudice defeated by a deeper prejudice.

And Sam, spare us the 5th-grade sophistry. You could use the same bullshit arguments about Loving v. Virginia. Giving women any rights at all in marriage -- say, the right to own property or the right not to be beaten or raped -- also "changed the definition of marriage."

You are a homophobe and a bigot. Deal with it. At least have the courage to admit that it's about your hate, not about dictionary definitions or procreation (time to eliminate the right of the infertile to marry, right?).

This is just ignorance and hatred, wrapped up in moronic argument by tautology. If it was all about the word "marriage" then Prop 8 would have amended the California Constitution to maintain the right of same-sex couples to join legally, but would have given it a different name.

Posted by Pesto | November 5, 2008 9:03 AM

" As long as a man and a woman are the means to procreation, the foundation of marriage will be a man and a woman.'

This simply isn't true. Responsibility for children is proscribed by the law, irrespective of the marital status of their parents.

Civil marriage is an institution that deals with the shared ownership of property, assets, and financial obligations under the rubric of a committed emotional relationship formed in the name of erotic love.

The state recognizes that, irrespective of whether or not children are a product of this erotic love, there are pro-social aspects to the transfer of a house or debt to a surviving spouse. (By contrast, the State recognizes making children are not responsible for their parents' debts is anti-social.)

Excluding citizens from partaking in civil marriage on the basis of whom they chose to form a committed erotic relationship is discriminatory and anti-social.

Posted by Tony Comstock | November 5, 2008 9:08 AM

I actually think part of the problem here is that there's an underlying misconception - which is that black people are actually the biggest fans of Loving vs. Virginia. The people who really see interracial dating and marriage as an improvement to our society, I tend to find... are white. And I suspect that's where the disconnect begins; attempting to link gay marriage to the progress established in Loving, tends to underline the thing that many black people don't necessarily approve of - dating and marrying outside the race. And I think that's one of those hard things about discussing race in this country that we don't like to look at - that as much as white people need to make progress on various views and attitudes, there's some growing to do within the black community too, and perhaps, when interracial dating is still so problematic, it's unrealistic to expect a leap into accepting gay marriage as well.

Posted by weboy | November 5, 2008 9:14 AM

It was Jimmy "JJ" Kid Dyn-o-mite Walker who, back in the 70s in his stand-up routine, said: I read the other day that a brother got busted for embezzlement...we made it...we finally made it...into white collar crime.

Some of those civil rights workers buried in the ground down south are Jewish. Don't get me started...

Its a great day for America.

Posted by rickhavoc | November 5, 2008 9:18 AM

If procreation is the test for a valid marriage, then marriages between the barren should be illegal. And marriages between the elderly. And between the voluntarily childless. Your argument doesn't hold water, sam.

Prop 8 isn't about whom one can love. It's about civil recognition of unions that's transferable to other states, and all the rights which derive from it. It's a matter of law. Your notions about what's natural or traditional are irrelevant.

I'm sick and sad today, as a Californian, to see how many of my neighbors think they're going to get a higher place in heaven for keeping people down on earth. I know this will be overturned someday, and maybe sooner than I think. Hatred always loses. But it's a big disappointment on a day which is otherwise such a ratification of hope.

Posted by byrneout | November 5, 2008 9:18 AM

I am a white Californian. I live in semi rural northern California. When I lived way out in the boonies between the ages of 25 and 40 in a rather strong and large community, we used to have a joke about how everyone's straight marriage fell apart, but the gay and lesbian couples always stayed together. I have an impossible time figuring out why what another couple wants to do in committing themselves to one another has anything to do with me. I guess I am extremely, conservatively secular in this regard--of the live and let live school of American politics.
And I really do think it boils down to what bad shape heterosexual marriage is in these days, how that undercuts everyone's sexual identity, and how gays (and atheism) as a result of being the one group in America a large portion of Americans of all backgounds still refuse to acknowledge their full humanity are the scapecgoated targets of straight failures to take care of their own buisness. Perhaps there is also some biological phobia about fearing that one's children might "become" gay if to do so is presented attractively because a desire to propagate our own is hardwired into the system.
Whatever, Prop 8 passing puts a stain on last night, and serves as a reminder that not all things are decided righteously in the ballot box. There is still work to do to achieve a common humanity for us all.

Posted by CitizenE | November 5, 2008 9:23 AM

Another misconception is that Loving v Virginia is about racial equality. It's not. It's about sexual liberty.

Virginia's miscegenation law discriminated against both Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving. It denied both of them the liberty to marry the person of their choice.

Gay marriage has rightly been compared to Loving v Virginia, but in the misunderstanding of what civil rights issues are actually addressed by Loving, gay marriage has erroneously been equated to the fight for racial equality.

Through out our country's history, the definition of citizen expanded; from white, male, property owner to the more expansive vision of citizenship we have today. But equality is not the only measure of a nation's freedom. Equality means nothing without liberty.

Posted by Tony Comstock | November 5, 2008 9:26 AM

Thanks, TNC.

Everyone: What happened was sad, but let us not despair. Some fights you win --see Obama, Barack--, some fights you lose. Some fights you get to refight. How many years until the Cali voters reversed themselves on this? 4, 6 tops.

And a little detail has been lost in the middle of the historic night that was yesterday. In New York, Democrats won the Senate. There a truly compassionate, lovable black man is the most pro-gay governor in the country. So I expect we will have marriage equality in 2009 in the Empire State.

Posted by Eduardo | November 5, 2008 9:29 AM

First off, I am so glad to hear that Ta-Nehisi is working on a piece about this challenge.

I a social liberal and strong supporter of marriage equality and have discussed this issue at length with a close relative who has become an Evangelical Christian and who is strongly against gay marriage for "Biblical reasons." I do think one of the challenges that the marriage equality movement is facing is that most of them view marriage more as a religious institution rather than a state-sanctioned set of legal rights and responsibilities. I am not saying that gay people should have "separate but equal" civil unions, I am just saying that the main opposition comes from people who take the Bible literally and wish to impose Biblical teachings on the rest of us. Of course back in the day these same people used the Bible to argue agains inter-racial marriage.....

Posted by KCN | November 5, 2008 9:33 AM

The sad irony is that, on the night the US elected its first African American President, African Americans were the decisive factor in stripping another group of their civil rights. This is bigotry plain and simple and, in my opinion, it really diminishes Obama's historic election.

Everyone who voted for Proposition 8 should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm beyond furious...

Posted by Ingvy | November 5, 2008 9:38 AM

Times like these I find myself re-reading Federalist Paper #10

“A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

What a shame that the California constitution can be changed by a simple majority. I wonder whose rights they'll be voting on next?

Posted by Tony Comstock | November 5, 2008 9:40 AM

Two comments from a straight white guy:
1. Here in Mass, my observation of the debates over gay marriage was that rhetoric that defined gay marriage as a "civil right" was often heard by some people as equating the oppression of gays with the oppression of blacks, which some people thought to be presumptuous. As though the phrase "civil rights" only referred to the "Civil Rights Movement". This linkage between the civil right of gays to marry and the "Civil Rights Movement" was invoked as validating gay marriage by some AA leaders, and resented by others.
2. Look beyond religion, please. I think that there is a correlation between communities that experience marriage instability and opposition to gay marriage. States like Mass, which have low divorce rates, are more open to gay marriage than states like Texas which have much higher rates of divorce. It's part of a larger pattern in which family instability in a community leads to conservative religions and homophobia as defenses against that instability.

Posted by tom in ma | November 5, 2008 9:41 AM

As an African-American male who is married with two kids, the state marriage-ban results elicited pangs of guilt in me on a night that should have been solely celebratory.

For my LGBT friends that I have and those I'll meet, you can rest assured that my family and will be subverting these laws whenever the opportunity arises. In our lives and our home, your marriages are no different.

Keep fighting...A Change is Gonna Come.

Posted by Gotta Ask Why | November 5, 2008 9:49 AM

@Sam "As long as a man and a woman are the means to procreation, the foundation of marriage will be a man and a woman."

Your argument seems to be debilitated by the confusion of what is sufficient and what is necessary. Our concept of marriage is not necessarily limited by who can procreate and who can’t. Furthermore, the procreation premise fails to touch on the heart of this issue. What is really at stake here is deferential treatment before the law.

Second, I understand how close this was as a vote. However, I don’t believe ethnic background warrants this high level of attention. I especially don’t get it when you consider the absolute number of African-American voters in California. Comparatively speaking, the state is not even close to major population center for African-Americans. Rural whites and people in the O.C. more so passed this vote than Rasheed in Compton. There are significantly more white and Hispanic voters, and twice as many Asian voters than blacks in California. So why are we talking about teh blacks when they played a relatively minuscule role and there are better indicators such as region, age and education.

Posted by Menelik | November 5, 2008 9:52 AM

TNC, culture doesn't shape people as much as people shape culture according to their needs.
It may be....the supremes will have to free teh gay like they freed the slaves.
It will happen.

The only way the conservatives can return to a voter plurality is to become the party of unity and tolerance.
Our culture is being reshaped by our election of a black man to be president. Population genetics is reshaping our demographics.
Isn't this a wonderful time to be alive?
We have just elected a black man to be president and the brightest star in the firmament of the conservative intelligentsia is a muslim-american named Reihan Salam.
You should read these guys.
;)

Posted by matoko_chan | November 5, 2008 9:59 AM

"If someone wants to give me a reason why gay people shouldn't be able to marry that doesn't, at its root, boil down to "yuck," I guess I'd love to hear it."

It depends on what you think the purpose of state-sanctioned marriage is. Is it to recognize the loving union of two people? Historically, the government hasn't really cared about whether a marriage was based on love or not. And there are many love-based relationships that do not receive a special sanction by the state, whether it's the love of a long-time unmarried hetero couple, the love of close siblings, or the love that close friends may have for each other.

State-sanctioned marriage often carries some financial costs to the community, in terms of tax revenue and other things. But it may be outweighed by the interest the government has in promoting procreation within a stable environment (which, in turn, might be of financial benefit to the state long-term). That interest is generally fulfilled in heterosexual marriages, where couples that produce no offspring are the exception to the rule, while it rarely occurs in homosexual relationships, as adoption and invitro fertilization are still pretty rare.

Posted by Jeff D. | November 5, 2008 10:01 AM

Homophobia is largely rooted in organized religion.

Religious practice persists disproportionately among African-Americans because of the special place, and sometimes heroic role, of the Black church in America. For centuries, and in living memory, church was the only place that Black people could lawfully assemble.

Certainly plenty of good has been done by religiously-inspired people, but it’s hard to argue that the net role of organized religion has been positive -- the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Conquest, apartheid, the ongoing divide-and-rule obscurantism.

Organized religions all have conflicting world views. Only one of them can be right. All of them, or all but one of them, must be wrong.

Tolerance is crucial; the last thing we need is thought police. Religion is fine in the home and in the sanctuary, but it should be kept out of public life. The right of religious assembly should be trumped by the disestablishment of religion.

We have the right to think (but not act) irrationally. We shouldn’t be admired for being irrational. It’s past time for intellectuals to stop coddling organized religion.

Posted by Watson | November 5, 2008 10:03 AM

I remember back in 1994 when Colorado passed Amendment 2. Its success lead to an economic boycott of the state (Hollywood was VERY vocal about this). Will Hollywood pick up and leave the state? It's time to put up, or shut up Hollywood!

I just did what I could. We had a large conference (1000+ expected attendance) planned for San Diego in March. This morning, I canceled that event and moved it to Boston.

The state of California will never get my business again.

Posted by Ingvy | November 5, 2008 10:08 AM

TNC, I'm sure this point has been made before, but I wish you would acknowledge there's a very good reason for caring about personal attitudes (homophobia, racism, etc.), namely that it effects the things that you do care about: an equal shot at stuff that groups not subject to those attitudes take for granted. So maybe you might sharpen your position along these lines: not caring about bigoted attitudes *per se*, but caring about them when they lead people to treat others unequally in ways that matter for their social status and effective opportunity.

Posted by DKE | November 5, 2008 10:09 AM

I'm a Californian, and this morning I feel like I'm in a little-known Dickens novel, A Tale of Two Countries. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

Last night my country actually lived up to the ideals I was taught as a child, 40 years ago. It chose hope, it looked to the future. It chose to connect to the other. It chose courage. It chose equality of opportunity for everyone.

Unless you're gay in Califonia, and want to have the same legal rights and responsibilities to your partner as a straight couple has.

I would have made different commercials than the No on 8 campaign did. I would put gay couples on screen, saying why they wanted to be married specifically. People like my doctor, who has lived with her partner for 30+ years. They have a whole bunch of legal wrangling to deal with, I'm sure. Who would be harmed by letting them marry?

Posted by Doctor Jay | November 5, 2008 10:15 AM

As a married, Christian lesbian from Massachusetts (my wife is an out Episcopal priest in downtown Boston), I think blaming religion is a red herring (yes, I'm aware the Mormon church threw massive amounts of money to support the ban in CA.) When the MA state legislature was wrestling to put this issue to rest (precisely so that it wouldn't come to a popular vote), the legislators who changed their minds to support equal marriage did so because of personal stories of gay and lesbian people and their allies. For me, it all comes down to being brave enough to live our lives openly and without shame. It comes down to not changing pronouns when we talk to people who we think might not approve. It comes down to having our parents and family members and friends talk openly about us with pride. This is sometimes excruciatingly difficult to do, and the decision to be out has to be made daily, often multiple times a day, which can be exhausting. But we have to find the will and the way to do this.

People are most afraid of the unknown. If we and our allies do not make ourselves known in the ordinary day-to-day living of our lives, we bear some responsibility for the fear that we condone with our silence. As the great writer Audre Lorde always said, "Your silence will not protect you." We have work to do. Let's not waste time figuring out who is to blame for this bitter disappointment. Let's just roll up our sleeves, come out, be known, and find ways to reach across the chasm without giving up our integrity, and without asking others to give up theirs.

Posted by Joy | November 5, 2008 10:18 AM

"State-sanctioned marriage often carries some financial costs to the community, in terms of tax revenue and other things"

Apparently you've never check the box "Married and filing jointly".

I would like to see the demographics of the black vote in California teased out a little more. What if the black vote had gone 100% against Prop 8? Would that have been enough to defeat the measure? How about if they had voted yes/no in the same proportion as whites, or the electorate at large?

RE: Rural white vote

I guess this is why I'm on my tear about the difference between liberty and equality. Now that California has decided (by simply majority no less!) that men can't marry men and women can't marry women, what's next. Will there be a vote on the right to own firearms, or on what books (or movies) can be read or written?

Of course both of the above enjoy explicit constitutional protection at the federal level. But since Roe, we've gotten into the lazy habit of reading the constitution like tea leaves, trying to "finding" rights. This is exactly what the framers who opposed a bill of rights were afraid of; that over time an enumeration of specific rights would transform into an exclusionary listing of our rights.

Does this sound far fetched? Not so much. Scalia doesn't believe that the constitution protects the right to engage in sodomy. Hell, he doesn't even believe the constitution protects your right to masturbate. I shit you not. Scalia thinks state laws prohibiting masturbation would be constitutional!

How about wearing a blue shirt? Would a state law banning the wearing of blue shirts be constitutional? If you follow the logic of Roe/Scalia/CR=equality, I guess it would be. There's nothing in the text of the Constitution protecting our right to wear the garments of our choosing, let alone our right to choose the color, so long as it applied equally to every one, regardless of race or religion, it would be okay.

I know I know. I sound like I'm one of those batshit crazy libertarians. I'm not. Really. I'm a liberal who thinks that the civil rights advances that were made in the Civil Right era come with some baggage. Baggage that it's time we unpacked.

Posted by Tony Comstock | November 5, 2008 10:21 AM

I'm all for gay marriage, but look at the population of California. 6.75% is black, 76.7% is white and 35.9% is Latino. Blacks voting 70% for Prop 8 wouldn't have done anything to that. More whites voted no on Prop 8, but 47% of whites voted for it and that's way more that 70% of blacks with maybe 50% turnout. So, yes, blacks need to get their stuff straight and not vote against civil rights, but the black population in California is not enough to swing any initiative one way or another.

Posted by Rainy | November 5, 2008 10:22 AM

To paraphrase the greatest image macro of this election season:

We got this. My generation will fix this, and we'll do it sooner than most will believe is possible. We'll do it the same way we did these last two years- We'll out hustle the ones we can't win over.

Equal rights for all people. And no rest until that happens.

- Peter

Posted by Peter | November 5, 2008 10:29 AM

In all honesty, I think it just came down to framing. Prop 8 didn't have an Obama-like anti-spin machine. The "Yes on 8" people made it all about the kids and the there was never sufficient (or effective) push back against that. The area of SoCal that I live in is pretty Republican and they had total control of the message on a state and local level.

Also as a member of the Black minority (who voted NO, btw) who is vastly outnumbered by Whites, Hispanics, and Asians, I don't get how we get scapegoated. Blame the Anonymous Black Man?

Posted by Just Will | November 5, 2008 10:30 AM

"Apparently you've never check the box 'Married and filing jointly'."

Depending on how much you and your spouse make, you may pay more or less in income taxes if you are married. But most people pay less in taxes overall, and are also eligible for a greater number of government benefits. Recognizing marriage has some financial costs to the state.

I'm not saying that the vast majority of voters didn't have a more base reason for supporting Prop. 8, but I just wanted to play devil's advocate and illustrate to TNC that it is possible to construct a reasonable argument against state-sanctioned gay marriage. Whether or not it's a persuasive argument is another issue, and one I really don't care enough to argue about.

Posted by Jeff D. | November 5, 2008 10:37 AM

They can't marry.

They can marry, in fact; in many states now and until very recently even in California.

It's incumbent on you to explain why already-married adults should be forced into government-mandated annullment. When do we get to vote on your marriage, Sam?

Posted by Chet | November 5, 2008 10:38 AM

"I shit you not. Scalia thinks state laws prohibiting masturbation would be constitutional!"

I've never heard that before. It sounds possible, but do you have any evidence to support it?

Posted by Thomas R | November 5, 2008 10:40 AM

And I considered looking it up myself but "Scalia+masturbation" would probably get a bunch of things I don't want.

Posted by Thomas R | November 5, 2008 10:41 AM

Wow, people are really twisting themselves into rhetorical pretzels trying that, since the African American vote alone couldn't have defeated Prop 8, African Americans don't deserve to be called out for their bigotry. Guess what? You're a bunch of bigots - just like everybody else.

When it comes to homophobia, African Americans are, quite possibly, the most bigoted group in the USA.

Posted by Ingvy | November 5, 2008 10:41 AM

I got into a conversation just a few days ago that started out on did you vote for Obama, but eventually ended up in an argument, or spirited disagreement on gay marriage.
Dude came at me from several directions trying to make his point but every argument was easily disconstructed, an eventually all roads led back to yuck...

As weak of an agrument as yuck is, for a lot people who otherwise have nothing to loose its enough. I don't know what the next move is, but I suspect that any real widespread victory wont be achieved via the ballot box. Not in the short term.

Posted by Green | November 5, 2008 10:43 AM

As much as I like O and supported him, he does not support same sex marriage. We elected a progressive black man who believes in separate but "equal". And I am immensely saddened.

Posted by gex | November 5, 2008 10:49 AM

Watching this legislative tug-about regarding gay marriage just crystallizes why the Founders had an aversion to direct democracy. Schizophrenia seen as a feature, rather than a bug, of the political process, is damaging to the credibility of the institution. While I recognize it is the right of states to have ballot initiatives, it does seem that we'd be better served limiting them to the county or municipal level.

Posted by Ginger Joe | November 5, 2008 10:57 AM

tate-sanctioned marriage often carries some financial costs to the community, in terms of tax revenue and other things. But it may be outweighed by the interest the government has in promoting procreation within a stable environment (which, in turn, might be of financial benefit to the state long-term).

If procreating in a stable environment was all it was about, polygamy and concubinage would be legal. Marriage is a set of protections given to two people who choose to live with their finances joined. The right of inheritance and the right to visit a spouse in the hospital and make medical decisions on his or her behalf have little to do with procreation within a stable environment.

Posted by Persia | November 5, 2008 11:00 AM

As much as I like O and supported him, he does not support same sex marriage. We elected a progressive black man who believes in separate but "equal".

I think that is a point many are missing. There is a slight distinction, because I believe Obama is against a Constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage, he has stated he thinks marriage is only between a man and a woman.

I think it is unfair to hold 60%+ of the African American voters in California to a higher standard than is applied to Obama.

When I first heard of the issue over ten years ago, my kneejerk reaction was that gay marriage just isn't normal. Over time, I just couldn't answer a simple question: Why should gay people be prevented from marrying? I couldn't even come up with a bad reason, so I voted no on the same-sex marriage ban on the Michigan ballot years ago.

Posted by DougEFresh | November 5, 2008 11:01 AM

Re: Scalia and Masturbation

From his decent in Lawrence v. Texas:

"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices."

The reference to Bowers is from Owens v. State, 352 Md. 663, 683, 724 A. 2d 43, 53 (1999) (relying on Bowers in holding that "a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage")

Read it an weep, boys and girls. Scalia and his fellow travelers on the Supreme Court, and throughout society think the State owns your cock and balls, and that your only sheild from state interference in what you do with your cock and balls is marriage. According to Scalia, the constitution protects my right to fuck my wife, but not my right to jerk off.

Posted by Tony Comstock | November 5, 2008 11:07 AM

Great post - and sad that blacks, at least in California, are disproportionately homophobic, at least judging by the exit polls. They are bigoted, on this issue, in greater percentages than pretty much any other ethnic or age group.

Period.

The way I see it - blacks have a blind spot. They generally find the arguments in favor of gay marriage "false" when they're framed in civil rights terms. And, frankly, they don't think gays are entitled to the same civil rights as black people.

We can argue about why they think this, but it's reality. Did we excuse the bigotry and racism of old white people in the South when they refused to accept the necessary change of the civil rights movement? My guess is there was a lot less acceptance or justification for that behavior amongst blacks than there is about their own bigotry towards gays.

Frankly, there's no other thing to say than this makes me sick to my stomach. I blame everyone who voted for prop 8, but for another oppressed minority to do so in such great numbers is nothing but disgusting and reprehensible. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by jcricket | November 5, 2008 11:10 AM

I was reading the comments, and I'm also curious to see how the CA AA vote breaks down in a generational sense. I'm a 25 year old AA in Florida, and I voted no on our version of Prop 8 (Prop 2), same as my Cuban, Caucasian, and Indian friends. Even my friend T, another AA, voted against it, even though he's the closest thing to a homophobe in our group (he's a homophobe, but he's the closest). His reasoning? "Just means less homos hittin' on me." Laughable reasoning aside, I wonder sometimes about the disconnect between generations on homosexual rights, especially between AA generations, and unfortunately I keep coming back to the church. A lot of older Black people go faithfully, and they're anti-homosexual rights; a lot of younger Black people are more inconsistent, and are generally more pro-rights than their parents. Sometimes, it really is that simple.

Posted by Henok | November 5, 2008 11:14 AM

It seems to me that a lot of the openness to gay marriage, and to legal protections etc, comes from gays becoming much more visible in society. It switched from "I have heard there are gay people out there, like in some big cities" to "Would I care if Anna's parents were married rather than living together? How about if my nephew could get legally married?"

So, why does that have less impact on blacks in CA, where I'm sure they've seen a gay person?

Posted by Deborah | November 5, 2008 11:17 AM

Comments on this thread have made me cry. I woke up this morning and was crushed to see that CA had passed Prop 8. It felt like the rug had been ripped out from under my hope that our country was moving in the right direction. But so many of the comments here have been so hopeful, so sure that this is temporary and that good things are going to happen n spite of an apparent majority's bigotry. Thank you everyone. I needed that this morning.

Posted by Anna S | November 5, 2008 11:18 AM

Jeff, you really have not made an argument against legally sanctioned gay marriage.

I'm almost too sick to even engage this, but I wouldn't want anyone to think there is an unrefuted argument against legally sanctioned gay marriage in this comments section so here goes.

The reason the state bears the cost in potentially lower tax revenue for marriage cannot be to subsidize procreation because there are easier ways to do that. Also historically, marriage came before the choice on IRS forms for married couples to file jointly or separately.

But by the earlier conception, there is an "exception" drawn for married couples that choose not to have children for some reason, while gay adoption is supposedly rare.

So we've moved the question to, if government should allow an exception in its procreation subsidy for married heterosexual couples that do not want children, why should it not extend this "exception" to married homosexual couples, even those that adopt children?

And this question, which is the same question as the original, does not have an answer except "yuck".

I feel dirty for even doing this, especially because cutting through rationizations for the gay marriage ban isn't even the point.

We have an issue where the consensus African American view is wrong, unreasonable and not worthy of rational discussion. This consensus African American view is supported by the single strongest institution in the community.

Yes, Blacks are going to be outvoted on this in California next time, and I'll root for that wishing I didn't have to.

But there is a hard and frustrating problem of how to get Black people to see past this irrational religious belief. And I'm not sure there is a good answer to this problem.

Posted by Jack Irons | November 5, 2008 11:21 AM

This is why I refuse to get married. As my community bemoans the breakdown of black marriage, I, a black woman singularly committed to a black man (we just celebrated our 10th anniversary) with a child, have made a conscious choice not to join an institution that seeks to dictate the terms of a relationship based on whom a person loves. In the words of Lauryn Hill, "You might win some but you just lost one."

Posted by Chico | November 5, 2008 11:40 AM

"There is a slight distinction, because I believe Obama is against a Constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage, he has stated he thinks marriage is only between a man and a woman."

Doug, that's more than just a "slight" distinction. Equality is about not denying others the same rights you have, regardless of how you feel about the issue. One can be personally against abortion and still be pro-choice. One can be against gay marriage and still be against a constitutional ammendement banning those rights. Obama is for equality. Period.

Posted by Tessa | November 5, 2008 11:42 AM

I'm an african-american man and I'm still not over the yuck factor....but I voted NO on 8. A few months ago, I would definitely have voted for Prop 8. But, I'm married to a white woman, and once I started thinking about the issue. It would be crazy for me to vote against someone else's rights when my marriage would have been illegal 50 years ago.

Not much I can say, but we can do better.

Posted by Courtney H | November 5, 2008 11:43 AM

Tessa,

Not sure how a no constitutional amendment but also a no same sex marriage stance by Obama counts as being for equality. Please explain.

Posted by gex | November 5, 2008 11:44 AM

I think that the best thing to do is establish a difference between a civil union and marriage. Marriage has a connotation about church and being married before god and all that. Instead have a civil union that is for legal purposes the exact same thing as being married. In addition I believe those civil unions should be allowed between any two individuals. I know many individuals that have a life partner (in a non sexual way). Quite often they are two widows, two best friends that never got married, or siblings that never got married. They should have the ability to form a civil union to share the benefits that they receive.

HOWEVER, given that separation of meaning I think that any references to marriage should be removed as marriage is no longer a civil matter it is a religious matter. And being a religious matter it should be determined by that individuals faith. Otherwise the religious majority is oppressing the religious minority.

FYI I am a member of the UU (http://www.uua.org/) and I support gay marriage in the religious sense.

Posted by guru42101 | November 5, 2008 11:46 AM