http://www.ncsu.edu/stud_affairs/glbt/pdfs/Prop 8 Report.pdf http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/7/34645/1235/704/656272 So no, Prop 8 was passed by a heavy White presence.
Uh, your own link (first one) says less than half of the white voters voted yes on 8. I'm pretty sure that means it wasn't passed by "heavy White presence".
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-01-...-marriage-ban-black-voters-lesbian-task-force But an analysis of precinct-level voting data on Prop. 8 from Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco counties, which are home to nearly two-thirds of California's black voters, suggested that African American support for Prop. 8 was more likely about 58 percent. That support among blacks is still well above the 52 percent Prop. 8 received from all voters in the Nov. 4 election. Much of that can be attributed to the strong religious tradition in the black community, where 57 percent of African American voters attend church at least once a week, compared with 42 percent of Californians overall. "The study debunks the myth that African Americans overwhelmingly and disproportionately supported Proposition 8," Andrea Shorter, director of And Marriage for All, said in a statement. "But we clearly have work to do with, within and for African American communities, particularly the black church." *shrug* - 58% is HUUUUUGE.
The first link also says that 67% of the total voters are White. The third link shows you that near 3.2 million white people voted yes, where as the total Latino and Asian vote combined is 1,512,183 yes votes - or actually less yes votes than White women (1,552,972) by themselves (White men had the most yes votes with 1,632,480). The Black turnout on the Prop 8 issue in the first link says they have the same presence as Asians, although they did vote 58% yes - but they are only 7% of the total vote. So yes, it was a heavy White presence and vote that passed proposition 8.
Bullshit. There were 500,000 LEGAL abortions the year before Roe v. Wade was decided. Abortion was legal in NY and CA, among other states.
58% does speak, proportionally, that black voters overwhelmingly voted for prop 8. Reagan got 56% of the vote in his 2nd election, a landslide. 58% is HUUUUGE, as I said.
Wow. That is some incredibly bad and faulty logic. If ONLY Whites had voted, Prop 8 would have failed. Your link and data show that. Yet somehow, it was "a heavy White presence and vote that passed proposition 8"??? Terrible logic. Absolutely terrible. If no White voters had showed up to vote, then Prop 8 would have passed by an even wider margin. Yet somehow it was "a heavy White presence and vote that passed prop 8"??? Did I mention that was atrocious and false logic, with your own links contradicting your statement?
By the way, you did see the part about why I think churches SHOULD lose their tax exempt status, didn't you?
Churches (and other religious bodies) could and can legally decide who can be members. So the Mormon Church could legally bar African-Americans and can legally bar gays & lesbians FROM CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. But if a member of the church owns a secular business, he/she could not legally refuse to hire African Americans from the time the Civil Rights Act was passed. Since only 13 states prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, the businessperson can legally bar gays and lesbians from employment in a secular business in the other states. California is among the 13 so a member of the Mormon Church who owns a secular business in California cannot legally refuse to hire or otherwise discriminate against a qualified GLBT employee. (Obviously we know there are a lot of sneaky ways around anti-discrimination laws but the law still holds.)
Hell yes they should pay taxes. I see no reason why some organization's wacky theory about what happens after you are dead and who made the planet should entitle them to tax-free status. If a church wants to set up a charity that's tax free, that's fine by me. But the money it collects that goes toward paying for pews and pulpits and pastors? That should definitely be taxed.
I think the timing was hilarious. "Uh, guys, everybody thinks the Mormons are a bunch of morons. (It doesn't help that we worship an angel named Moroni. Somebody in Marketing really needs to get on re-branding that.) It's 1978. So, uh, I think God says the darkies are ok to be leaders now. His bad." Way to be on the cutting edge of history, Utah.
So do I. We are talking about some tremendously wealthy institutions who are effectively subsidized by the rest of us (they get road service, garbage pickup, police and fire protection, etc.) and who very often use their wealth to influence political decisions and elections and/or to evade justice. However, that is another fight.
You may not agree with it, but here's an interesting and thought-provoking read on the larger issue: http://volokh.com/2010/08/04/a-maximalist-decision-raising-the-stakes/
