You know, the scary thing is, Magellan and his klan will read your words and think, “that’s true! Fucking child adopters stealing our word! Let’s take their rights away too!”
You’re trying to be ironic, but be careful on whom you use irony.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh… I know this is the pit but I think there are enough things Magellan has actually said that we can disagree with that we don’t need to make up imaginary ones.
I think that was levdrakon’s point: there’s an enormous amount of homophobia in the black community, and he was calling on Oprah to take a more visible role in combating it. In the recent election, blacks voted overwhelmingly in favor of Prop 8 - 70% supported it. It’s entirely possible that if Obama had been less succesful in mobilizing black voters, gay marriage would still be legal in California today. But, then we’d also very likely have John McCain as our president-elect. Hell of a trade off, isn’t it?
One of the things I was pleasantly surprised at in the passage of Prop 8 was that only 53% of Latinos supported it. I’d expected a lot more opposition to SSM from such a strongly Catholic group.
Incidentally, I keep hearing about how much less support there was for Prop 8 among the youth vote, but I’d be curious to actually see the numbers. Does anyone have polls which give the breakdown by age?
Go here.
Age Yes No
18-29 39 61
30-44 55 45
45-64 54 46
65+ 61 39
Analysis on the numbers from Nate Silver.
Key point:
Thanks.
Now a little exercise, for anyone who thinks we’re a hundred years from equal rights: when the 65+ plus group above is mostly dead, and when the 45-64 is 65+, and when the 30-44 is 45-64, and when those 18-29 folks who voted strongly against Prop 8 are 30-44, and their children become the new 18-29…
How do you think those people will vote?
I’m curious too. The chart shows younger voters vote more liberally, but it also shows they vote more conservatively as they age. We’ll always have a 18-29 group and 30-65+ groups.
No. The chart shoes younger voters vote more liberally than the older voters. But the younger voters and older voters are seperate cohorts…so that chart doesn’t show you how the people who are 18-29 now will vote when they’re 30-65+.
I think Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment on this says mostly what I would say and says it better.
We’d have to look at liberal issues in past decades and see if the 18-29-ers became more conservative, but I can’t think of many issues that have gotten re-voted on every ten years or so.
Perhaps.
But for someone to become more conservative on an issue as they get older probably requires at least the semblance of a reason. I can understand, for example why someone aged 50 with a mortgage and a family to support might be more conservative on socio-economic issues like welfare, taxation, medical care, etc. than a 20-year-old.
But i’m struggling to find a reason why someone who is currently in their 20s and supports same-sex marriage would do a turnabout on that issue in their 30s or 40s.
We’ve been moving in the direction of increasing acceptance of rights for gays and lesbians over the past few decades, and i really can’t see a reason for that to stop now. In fact, my prediction is that it will more likely accelerate.
Of course, as the passing of Prop 8 shows, it hasn’t come fast enough. But i see no reason to fear a reversal of the recent trend, and every reason to expect a quickening of it.
I don’t really fear a reversal. More of a stagnation at 49-51 or something.
I do think you’re probably right, though.
Well, we’d have to look at the same issue, because the goalposts are moving. Somebody who had liberal opinions on homosexuality (for instance) when he was 20 might have conservative opinions on homosexuality at 60 without his beliefs actually changing. It’s just that beliefs once considered liberal are now considered conservative.
Personally, I think that you all are not being fair to Magellan in the slightest. And it’s not that I agree with him. But if I’ve been reading him accurately, he’s saying that gay couples deserve all the rights and privileges associated with marriage, with the sole exception of the name, which it would damage the “ideal” of marriage for reasons which as far as I can see he cannot or will not define. I think it’s a damn stupid exception to make, but given the rest of his position, presuming he’s being honest in holding it (as jhe generally is in setting forth contrarian views), it’s a refreshing change from the “Gawd’s Law prohibits gay ‘marriage’” clowns I’ve seen elsewhere.
And I think he deserves an apology for the pile-on, however much his apparent belligerence in posting style may have contributed to it.
Well, that’s what I thought at first too, Polycarp, but as the thread has gone on, he has also made clear a substantial belief that gay families are somehow inferior to families involving a straight couple, to the extent that society should promote the latter but not endorse the former. He is not a raging homophobe, and as you say, he does support equal rights for gays in many ways, but there is something quite distasteful here, don’t you think?
But when you vote to strip people of a right that they have, including the dissolution of currently existing marriages, then you are promulgating bigotry and discrimination. If you don’t mean to do that, then don’t vote that way.
I think this quote betrays magellan01’s true feelings about gays, which are certainly less than open-hearted. He thinks that gays are not enjoying a “full human experience” because they are not heterosexual breeders, and wouldn’t want their own children to be gay as a result of this lack (a view which I doubt is as universally held by gays as he’d like to think). He also states that he believes that gays are deviant and abnormal. He is worried that children will think gays are normal and OK if we use the word marriage to describe their unions, and clearly does not want them so influenced.
Underneath all the rhetoric, all the rationalizations, all the justifications, all the appeals to the majority and history and traditional whatever, this is his justification for why gays should not sully the word marriage. This is why he thinks that gay marriage is too far from the “natural ideal” to be sanctioned with the precious word, a word degraded daily by heterosexuals.
Also, he enters these gay marriage threads regularly, and knows what to expect in the Pit. I don’t think he deserves an apology. He dishes it out, so he should be able to take it.
I disagree on the issue of most of the “No on 8” voters. In fact, I’d be surprised if 10% of the electorate on either side of ANY issue in California would consider that principle, in and of itself, sacred enough to base a Supreme Court recall on.
I can’t pretend that I closely followed the Bird court recall campaign in 1986 (being stationed out of California at the time), but as I recall it, the point the anti-Bird folks were pounding on hardest was that she was standing in the way of a bunch of state-sanctioned killin’; not that she was a defective constitutional jurist. I’ll gladly accept historical instruction if I’m mistaken.
I feel that logical fallacies from pro-DPers that would have tightened the purses of potential pro-Bird donors will be less available to people funding a hypothetical defense against recall of the current court. ISTM that you’re soft on crime and want killers back out on the streets plays a lot better than you’re soft on sexual deviancy, and want gay weddings forced on every church in the state, even among this crowd, of whom more have gay family and friends than murdering family and friends.
I appreciate your view that it’s odious, but I have a somewhat twisted take on that sentiment; permitting a vote to refuse SSM is odious
Well, unless I’m mistaken, that call will be made by the state Supremes. Incidentally, I’m a bit surprised that (presumably) that point wasn’t already decided one way or the other before this was allowed to get to the ballot. But I digress: Is the state Supreme Court absolutely bound by the precedents of decisions by courts of the past, or are they allowed to interpret the state constitution on their own?
I disagree. There IS a right answer, and the people of California have shown a dismayingly consistent talent for getting the wrong one, at least en mass.
Heh. You ain’t from around here, are ya? 
No WAY are Californians that thoughtful.
Perhaps you’re correct. But I doubt that they would vote to unseat the court over it. And I’d love to believe that the court would refuse to be swayed by such a calculation.
Thanks for your response, Bricker. I always learn a lot interacting with you.
Just a quick comment. I enter these threads not to insult anyone. It is to have a discussion. I make a sincere effort to be civil, even in the Pit. That is not always possible due to the attacks I receive. If you review ANY thread I’ve been in—even those where I’ve been piled on—I can be completely civil to those posters who have treated me similarly. Go ahead, check. You’ll see that I can easily give someone like Der Trihs the respect he deserves and Revenant Threshold or Miller the civil response they deserve. Some people evidently don’t understand that a debate about an issue that many have strong personal feeling about is bound to test your emotions, and that it is incumbent upon each of us to do so. If one is unable to do that, the best course would be to stay out of the discussion. Or stay out of the Pit where there are no guardrails to make up for an inability to self-regulate.
You seem to think that simply presenting the other side of the debate is “dishing it out”. I suggest you think about the sense of that position.
I mean no offense, and in general i’d agree with this, but in certain cases “simply presenting the other side of the debate” can be dishing it out. I could present a dispassionate, clinical look at why it is exactly that slavery is perfectly acceptable, if limited to people who fail to pass an IQ test, but simple politeness would not mean that my argument to strip people of considerable rights were not offensive. Presenting the other side of the debate, even in careful, respectful language, does not save a position that inherently seems to show an extreme lack of respect. Whether or not you agree with them, there are people in this thread and the other who believe the position you have taken is at that extreme, including me; and while I don’t think responding with insults or anger is going to help very much, I can certainly understand it, and make sense of it.