On Prop 8, and scapegoats.

[pecunium]

The "black vote" didn't pass Prop 8.

We have a black population of about 6 percent. Assume they all voted, that's about 1.9 millon people. Assume all of them (whch isn't the case, but bear with me)are of voting age, and all of them voted, and the 70 percent of the black vote was pro 8 is true.

That's 1.3 million votes. Last I checked the prop was passing by about 500,000 votes. But... about 600,000 of those 1.9 million are under the age of 18. And, sadly, a large percentage of that population is in prison right now, and not eligible to vote. so we can lop another 190,000 votes (with a conservative estimate of 10 percent of black either in prison, or on parole).

That gives us about 750,000 votes, assuming (arguendo) all the blacks in the state who are eligible are registered.

The amendment is ahead by about 500,000 votes. Ok, if every black in the state voted no, then the amendment would be dead.

There are 17 million registered voters in Calif. The stats say black are registered at about the same rate as other groups, so we can probably figure they are registered at, call it 60 percent (because Obama was certainly something of an in-group identifier, much as a the home state of a national candidate is expected to have a larger turnout in their favor).

Take those votes we tallied up and adjust for that number.... 525,000.

So yes, the total number of votes which have it ahead is almost exactly equal to the black voting population.

But there are an awful lot of white folks who voted, and a lot of hispanics too.

My neighbors account for at least two of the vote for. They are white. A really small percentage shift of the white vote would have made the difference. The absentee ballots (which are not, traditionally, black, but rather white folks) aren't reversing the trend.

The whole of the polity voted, the whole of the polity takes the rap. The white folks (and it was a whole lott a white folks spending the money to flood the airwaves with the ads equating a vote againt 8 with a vote for religious intolerance) voted for it. The hispanics voted for it, the asians voted for it.

Yeah, we might be justified in pointing fingers if the black population were the only group which voted for it. Even if we call it 70 percent of the black population who voted for it, that's only 20 points (roughly) more than the percentage of whites who voted for it.

Which means the part which matters is that differential; the actual EXTRA votes of the black population is about 150,000; and that's if every one who is registered actually showed up to vote.

Which means everyone else is to blame for, at least, 350,000 votes.

It's not their fault.

Comments

[elf]

They voted yes because the Yes-On-8 campaign lied... and nobody was around to contradict those lies.

♦ They were told that their kids would be forced to "learn about gay marriage in school"--with the implication that their kids would be told "it's okay to be gay; it's okay to marry someone of the same sex; if some people think that's wrong, they're irrelevant."

— And nobody did the outreach necessary to tell them, no; the most your kids will be told is "couples of the same gender can get married." Just like now, they might get told "couples of the same gender can legally live together."

♦ They were told churches would (or could) lose their right to exist, for continuing to preach what they've believed for years. Centuries, some of them.

— They were not told this is a lie. That churches can believe--and preach--anything they want, as long as they're not advocating violence or other crimes while doing it.

♦ They were told churches would be forced to perform gay marriages or lose their tax-free status.

— They were not reminded that no church is required to marry *anyone*, and that many churches refuse to solemnize marriages for non-members, or divorcees, or people who haven't been through counseling. Churches are free to add "same-sex couples" to that list.

♦ They were told that gays already had all the same rights as married couples, and were going to all this hassle over a single word.

— They were not told that no, there are several legal differences between "marriage" and "domestic partnership," even in California, nor reminded that obviously, the word "marriage" carries social impact that the state is required not to grant some couples and bar to others.

The fundamentalist bigots who sponsored & promoted 8 were counting on churches to casually accept "marriage = male + female," without thinking about what that meant legally or even personally to some of them. And they were right... the No On 8 campaign failed to do real outreach to liberal & civil-rights oriented churches, many of whose members are willing to accept "those icky people, I don't like them, but I don't think their actions need to be illegal, either."

[texaslawchick.livejournal.com]

♦ They were told that gays already had all the same rights as married couples, and were going to all this hassle over a single word.

— They were not told that no, there are several legal differences between "marriage" and "domestic partnership," even in California, nor reminded that obviously, the word "marriage" carries social impact that the state is required not to grant some couples and bar to others.

Is this true? When I read the California Supreme Court case it seemed to me that the issue was solely over whether the term "civil union" was analagous to "marriage". I have a California licence but it's inactive, and I confess that I haven't been paying much as much attention as when I left the state six years ago.

IANAL.

[elf]

The CA Supreme Court accepted the word of the Attorney General that the rights were the same--while also listing nine ways in which they were not.

California Family Code Section 297.5, subdivision (a), states:
"Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."

However, there are other laws that haven't been adjusted to comply with that requirement:

1. Residency requirement for domestic partners
2. Minors can marry but not be domestic partners
3. Different filings; marriage requires solemnization
4. No confidential domestic partnership
5. Terminating a marriage requires a judge's ruling
6. Terminating a marriage requires residency
7. Domestic partners ineligible for CalPERS long-term care insurance program
8. Property tax exemption for spouse of deceased veteran
9. Putative spouse doctrine is not putative domestic partner doctrine

¨Domestic partners do not have the same rights: the right to commit to each other without residing together, to join in union as minors, to keep their relation confidential, to have a good-faith belief in the relationship provide some protection from damages.

¨They do not have the same protections: judicial overview and residency for dissolution.

¨They do not receive the same benefits: access to insurance policies and tax exemptions.

¨They do not have the same obligations: the requirement for solemnization of a commitment ceremony.

These show that the state of California does not treat domestic partnerships the same as marriage, nor equal to marriage. Instead, domestic partnerships are strongly implied to be a mere contract between individuals—not an essential unit of society that the state has an interest in encouraging and governing. They are not legally treated as family units equal in importance and social value to marriages.

(More details in Separate is not equal)

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's true. The Calif. Constitution has, among other things, an explicit right to privacy. This means one can be secretly wed; the same is not true of civil unions.

There are some other issues which also affect marriage, which are part of precedent. Those precedents don't extent to civil unions.

Those are a large part of why the question of the respective natures of civil union and marriage were the central issue in the decision.