Like Rain On Your Wedding Day

Submitted by Sean Oxendine on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 16:27

Well now that we're apparently past what can only be explained as a DOS attack from the Lamont campaign, I thought I would riff quickly off of Jason Bonham from Race42008. While I disagree with most of his post supporting the gay marriage amendment in California, I saw this interesting nugget:

A few days ago I posted on Proposition 8 gaining traction in California. The newest SUSA polling on this confirms this, with Prop 8 advocates leading [by] 3 percent thanks in a large measure to black voters who are in favor 58%-30% and to a small degree Hispanics who are in favor 47%-41%.

This is consistent with an often unmentioned effect seen nationwide: Racial minorities are consistently one of the most conservative demographic groups when it comes to gay rights. Consider the exit polls from the 2006 referendum on gay marriage in Arizona. There, whites actually had the lowest level of support for the failed referendum; hispanics were slightly more favorably inclined toward the ban than whites. Blacks overwhelmingly supported the ban. Approximately thirty-two people in Tennessee opposed the ban there, but they were disproprotionately white. In Virginia, the numbers were roughly even. In 2004, there was greater diversity, but blacks, hispanics, and whites all tended to oppose allowing same sex marriage in those states by supermajorities.

This is consistent with the recent Pew poll, which showed that African Americans were about ten points less likely than whites to support same sex marriage, sixteen points less likely to support civil unions, and twenty points less likely than mainline protestants and Catholics to support gay and lesbian adoptions (Hispanic Catholics were fifteen points less likely than white Catholics to support such adoptions).

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? There are two points, one short-term and one long-term. In the short term, the polling on the gay marriage amendment in California is extremely close. But everyone seems to be expecting a massive surge in African American turnout everywhere this year, which I do not dispute. If the same happens in California (where blacks make up a fairly small portion of the population), Barack Obama may, somewhat ironically, end up dooming gay marriage in that state (of course civil unions, which are the functional equivalent, will remain intact).

In the long term, there remains an interesting question about the makeup of the parties. Hispanics Democrats in Congress already tend to be more conservative than their brethern, especially on cultural issues, and especially when they hail from rural areas like South Texas. As time progresses, we also begin to see increasing diversity in the African American congressional delegation, with more and more Congressmen like Sanford Bishop, Harold Ford, and David Scott sounding conservative themes when it suits their constituents.

I don't expect to see African Americans and Hispanics vote Republican anytime in my lifetime, although if the party goes the Huckabee route (the opposite of what I'd like to see) of increased economic liberalism combined with cultural conservatism, this may become more likely. Of more interest is the effect this has within the Democratic caucus as time goes on. Will we see more ideological primaries in minority-majority districts, as we saw with Majette-McKinney or Cuellar-Rodriguez. Ironically, this is what we saw in the South in the 1930s-1960s, where race held together a Southern Democratic party split by serious ideological divisions.

Average:

Your rating: None

Sean Oxendine's blog
Login or register to post comments

Comments

DOS

Submitted by nickm on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 17:21.

Maybe a little extra traffic from Nate Silver showin' you some love? That's why I'm here, anyway... ;)

Civil unions

Submitted by Obdicut on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 17:31.

Civil unions are not functionally equivalent to marriage.

Other than that, a very interesting post. I moved from being a Republican to being an Independent largely becuase of the social conservatism of the Republicans. It has pissed me off to no end that very few people in the Democratic party have the balls to say "Gay marriage: it's fine.", and instead equivocate. I think that part of it is the taboo of challenging the social conservatives inside the Democratic party-- and who do tend to be minority to a greater extent. Whether or not the Democrats' social conservatives cause the same problems for the Democrats that they have caused for the Republicans, in terms of party unity and direction.

Just out of curiosity

Submitted by Sean Oxendine on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 17:57.

And I mean this in an honest inquiry sense, since this is not at all my area of expertise, how do civil unions function differently than marriages? I understand how the form is different, and why this might be important, but as far as function my understanding was that it was identical.

Certainly

Submitted by Obdicut on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 18:19.

The basic summation is:

Marriage provides so many benefits, in so many different circumstances, that codifying one law that gives all of the benefits is nearly impossible. If there was a law that said, "Civil Unions shall have in every way exactly the same rights and privelges as marriage", that would be to make civil unions functionally equivalent to marriages-- and it would make marriage and civil unions identical, which is clearly not what opponents of gay marriage want.

All the civil unions granted in the US, that I'm aware of, grant a limited set of rights. None of them say, "All rights attendant on marriage shall be granted to those with a civil union". All civil unions granted in the US are necessarily missing interstate and federal level rights, as well.

Here's a very good-- partisan, but scrupulously researched-- analysis of the situation.

http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/f/civilmarriage.htm

Many of the issues are due to the civil unions being a state-level right, and not recognized in other states or at the federal level. Many of the other issues are due to marriage being something that's recognized by private entities, in a quasi-legal realm, where civil unions are not. Other issues are simply rights that are granted to marriage that are not granted to holders of civil unions.

The immigration one, for example, is huge.

Full disclosure: I'm not gay, but I am a civil libertarian.

That is a distinction without a difference IMO

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 18:46.

I really couldn't care less about this issue and I suspect the vast majority of people (including many homosexuals who aren't really interested in getting "married") feel the same way.

There already exists many legal outlets for gay couples to gain the legal benefits of a marital union without having to fight an unnecessary culture war battle to gain the legal right to marry. The fact is that it is cultural radicals on the left psuhing this issue which trivializes it and creates the divisions that leftists play upon in order to promote their agenda.

This is not true, for the reasons I stated above

Submitted by Obdicut on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 18:52.

In particular, this comment is not true:

There already exists many legal outlets for gay couples to gain the legal benefits of a marital union without having to fight an unnecessary culture war battle to gain the legal right to marry.

Here is the report from the GAO on the subject. (PDF warning)

http://gaylife.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=gaylife&cdn=people&tm=7&f=20&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

Please note that many of these rights are not between the two entities involved in a marriage contract, and so a seperate contract granting those rights between those entities would not be possible.

I'm also unsure what a "culture war" is. It sounds rather jargon-ish.

Again I fail to see you argument.

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Thu, 10/23/2008 - 09:28.

There really doesn't exist any legal barriers to gaining the equivalent status if homosexual couples are actually interested in pursuing such an avenue (your report doesn't conivce me of anything). Yes they are technically not the same as a marital contract but in practice they function the same. I n fact there already many law cases already supporting it providing a legal precedent. I would submit to you to look at some writings froma gay conservative whom I respect, to gain better understanding of this issue besides what you get from the radical, left-wing of the gay rights movement.

Again, I've already actually provided examples.

Submitted by Obdicut on Thu, 10/23/2008 - 09:41.

Please provide an example of how a gay couple, one an American citizen, the other not, can sponsor the non-American for citizenship based on the relationship.

That is a specific right that marriage grants, that civil unions do not. It is one of hundreds of examples.

Do you understand that state-level rights without federal protection do not bind other states? And do you understand that there are federal rights attatched to marriage, which obviously state-level civil unions cannot grant?

Remember to show how a gay citizen can sponsor his non-citizen partner for citizenship in the same way a heterosexual citizen could sponsor his wife.

Oh, and if someone could define "culture war" for me, that'd be great.

Why do I need to?

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Thu, 10/23/2008 - 19:29.

You know it as well as I do. Again it is a non-issue for the vast majority of us. I don't believe that government even needs to be involved in the sanctioning the cultural practice of marraige for the same reason I oppose federal arts subsides because government shouldn't be inlvolved in sponsoring what they think should be the cultural practice whether its determing what is art or the definition of "marriage". Why for instance do companies now offer "domestic partner" benefits for their employess? Because they legally can.

As for the definiton of the term "culture war" pehaps that famed social scientist Dr. Wik E. Pedia might help you out on that. I can't believe a self-professed "civil libertarian" like yourself is unfamilar with the term. What have been under a rock for the last 15 years or so?

Well, that's all rather insulting

Submitted by Obdicut on Fri, 10/24/2008 - 00:44.

But I notice you're actually conceding the argument, in that you have in no way demonstrated how a gay couple with a civil union can participate in the right of sponsoring one's spouse for immigration-- nor have you addressed the topic of civil unions not being interstate, nor any federal benefit.

I'm not going to exchange insults.

Fine believe what you want,

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Fri, 10/24/2008 - 09:49.

If that is insulting to you then so be it, it was not intended as such, but I won't apologize for making my statement. However you are still unable to dmeonstarte why gay couples can not legally enter a civil union without resorting to propaganda.

It is only a matter of time

Submitted by johnson springs on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 21:20.

The quality of your marriage is unaffected by the quality of another's marriage. Most people without prior exposure find difference takes some getting used to. This issue skews dramatically between generations as well as among different social groups. Regardless, as gays and lesbians become more present and more accepted in the workplace, in the church, in the community, the resistance to gay rights and gay marriage will dissipate. That's the way these things always go. Opposition to rights is not a long term winner for any political party that aspires to a majority.

The Communists Always Said It Too

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 22:07.

They always claimed the inevitability of history on their side. They were wrong because their history and their moral compass was wrong.

Marriage is between one man and one woman. For good reasons. And the generational gap and situational gap will continue as those who have families learn to appreciate better how important it is to protect and defend the building blocks of our civilization.

It's not true to state that redefining marriage doesnt harm marriages; it harms the institution. Out-of-wedlock births have risen in countries that watered down marriage, and there are other negative impacts. See:

http://www.allianceformarriage.org/

http://www.savemarriageny.org/

http://www.savemarriageny.org/The%20Case%20Against%20Same-Sex%20Marriage...

If the abolition of traditional marriage and and denigration of traditional family structure continues apace, the ones hurt will be the next generation.

Most Americans know this in their bones and are therefore vigorously opposed to redefining marriage and thus undermining this vital institution, even as they accept the right of gays to live their lifestyle.

I'll see your communism and raise you a miscegenation

Submitted by johnson springs on Thu, 10/23/2008 - 09:32.

We're going to elect the child of a mixed race marriage that would have been illegal in most parts of the country a generation or two prior to Obama's parents meeting.

As preface let me say that I know many conservatives have deep convictions about marriage. I am not intending any offense. I offer the following arguments because I believe strongly that conservatism has much to offer our nation and that at the same time we are fast approaching a crossroads where a culturally inflexible conservatism that cannot recognize its affinities with too many of our fellow citizens risks becoming or remaining irrelevant to them.

I have two concerns here:

1) demographics: a) gays and lesbians are in relationships as committed and permenant as any other (IMO); they are having/adopting children and raising families. The presence of these families is rapidly becoming normal; b) our party id is shrinking; issues like "preserve marriage" skew the wrong direction across generations; it is a prime example of the inversion of many of the culture war wedge issues that used to capture valuable numbers of otherwise Democratic votes but are now more likely to push into the Democratic column voters who would otherwise support the GOP. We are long-run losers in this equation purely on the numbers. Any future GOP majority will include openly gay and lesbian office holders who cherish traditional values. I don't see how it can be any other way.

2) conservative cultural values: a significant number of gays and lesbians have reliably conservative values--many gays are business owners and entrepreneurs, for example, and therefore have affinities for conservative economic values. I see the aspiration to marry and raise a family as another example of gays embracing conservative values; by denying those apirations we lose the opportunity to grow the conservative coalition. Further, I would argue that when we maintain that the institution of marriage cannot provide the kind of support and cultural binding to gays that it provides to hetrosexual couples we fail our values.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue with you.

re: it is only a matter of time

Submitted by piraeus on Wed, 10/22/2008 - 22:44.

The quality of your marriage is unaffected by the quality of another's marriage.

That is just simply not true. How marriage is understood by a culture/society and how marriage is practiced at the macro level of a culture/society most certainly effects marriages at the individual level. When one goes into a marriage, one's understanding about what that relationship entails and what commitments come with it are inevitably shaped by the culture at large. And the culture at large is inevtibaly shaped by the laws and rules which govern it.

Piraeus

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 10/23/2008 - 17:16.

You say:

How marriage is understood by a culture/society and how marriage is practiced at the macro level of a culture/society most certainly effects marriages at the individual level. When one goes into a marriage, one's understanding about what that relationship entails and what commitments come with it are inevitably shaped by the culture at large. And the culture at large is inevtibaly shaped by the laws and rules which govern it.

If this is true, then why aren't we working to ban quickie marriages and 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th marriages?

I don't know why you don't NextRightNando . . .

Submitted by piraeus on Fri, 10/24/2008 - 13:34.

. . . . but many people do work on such things. See, the covenant marriage movement and more generally, opposition to no-fault divorce. The push for these things come from the social right, the exact place where the opposition to same-sex marriage is strongest.

I agree with you...

Submitted by johnson springs on Thu, 10/23/2008 - 09:35.

...especially this comment:

When one goes into a marriage, one's understanding about what that relationship entails and what commitments come with it are inevitably shaped by the culture at large.

Where I disagree, I suppose, is that I don't see anything specific to heterosexual relationships in that elegant formulation.

My intent

Submitted by piraeus on Thu, 10/23/2008 - 17:05.

johnson springs: I agree with you . . . especially this comment: . . .

Great!

As for your disagreement with me, I'm not really sure I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't matter. In contributing to this thread, my intent was not to get into a protracted debate over same-sex marriage. Rather, I wished to argue that the first sentence sentence in your comment -- and what I took to be the thesis of your argument -- is not true. And since it appears you've conceded that point I'm happily finished.

Civil Unions

Submitted by NStevens99 on Thu, 10/23/2008 - 11:10.

I generally agree with johnson springs' assessment of the gay marriage issue. My suggestion would be: why not work to remove marriage from government altogether? I see no contradiction in offering both homosexual and heterosexual couples "civil unions" by government, making marriage a strictly religious institution. It's a bit different, but it would be one way to signify a shift in favor of limited government.

More practically, I think that there is a 14th amendment issue if the benefits of marriage are not extended to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. On this token, I don't think the terminology argument of "marriage" v. "civil union" is that critical, provided that the benefits are equal. I think that in some form, there has to be a guarantee of equal benefits. The issue of what to call it can be left to the states.