Obama, are you f.cking paying attention?

My heart goes out to this couple. I know how painful it must be for this to happen to them because the federal government refuses to recognize gay marriages, even when the couples are married in those states that recognize these relationships.

The Feds can stop the deportations but Obama doesn't care about gay couples. Surely the gay community has woken up to that fact. The man is all talk and no action.

One case that says a lot.

I still run across moronic conservatives and even some very stupid libertarians who argue that gay couples can get all the same rights as straight couples merely through private legal contract. Of course that is just so much bullshit. A private legal contract would not save this couple from forced separation. And while marriage laws are state issues, under the so-called state's rights doctrine, immigration law is not. So, yes Virginia, there is a need for federal recognition of gay relationships. Marriage would stop the deportation process if they were straight. It might not mean the spouse can stay since the Feds routinely separate legally married people in their zeal to keep the xenophobes happy, but it would stop the process until the individual case were adjudicated.

In addition this case smashes the claims made by the bigots at the National Organization for (sic) Marriage. NOM claims that gay marriages would be a push for special rights not equal rights. Equal rights would give both kinds of couples legal rights in regards to immigration. Special rights would give one set rights that are not enjoyed by the other set. The only people pushing for special rights is NOM, which uses the Mormon supplied funding it receives to deny gay couples even the right to be together, let alone marry.

Love and Let Love: A sentiment I agree with.

He died a married man

Nestor Berchot had wanted to marry his partner Adrian Garcia, but like so many places it was illegal for gay couples to marry. But just recently Argentina legalized same-sex marriages. He and his partner were the first same-sex couple to marry in Mar del Plata.

Following the happy event friends and family of the couple gathered for a reception and celebration, where Nestor collapsed, suffering from high blood pressure. Taken to the hospital he died a few hours latter.

While no doubt Nestor, like all of us, has contemplated his own death, there was one thing he may never have considered before—that he would die while married to the love of his life. I hope his partner takes some comfort in that. It is the sort of comforting fact that straight couples take for granted, many without ever thinking what it means to those denied that option.

Similarly I think of Phyllis Lyons, who I met when I took some courses that the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, where she worked. It was Phyllis who had to approve my application to take the courses and we sat in her office chatting about various things. Phyllis was a brave, early pioneer of the fight for gay equality. She and her partner Del Martin met in 1950. When gay marriage was legalized in San Francisco the two were the first couple to wed in San Francisco on June 16, 2008, more than half a century after they began their life together -- they were finally able to make it "legit." Only a few weeks later, on August 27 Dell died at the age of 83.

So many people just take it for granted that they will marry and one die they will depart this life after spending their life as the married partner of the person they love. Imagine thinking you would never have that right. Imagine that you watched all those around you being allowed that choice, but it was denied you.

For Del and Phyllis, they shared a few short weeks, out of more than half a century of love, together as a married couple. But they had it. Nester Berchot only enjoyed marriage for a few short hours before his life ended. But he was married. Yet the cemeteries are filled with loving gay men and lesbians who died never allowed to marry the person they love. That is a tragedy we can never undo, but it is one we can prevent from happening ever again.

Judge Napolitano on courts and gay marriage.

Prop 8 overturned

By now you know that the federal court judge in the Prop 8 case has ruled that the Proposition violates fundamental rights. I believe he is right. His ruling goes into great detail about the evidence offered and the conclusions he drew and why he drew them.

The ruling is 136 pages, which is not a quick read. I want to focus on one aspect of the decision: is there a compelling reason for the state to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples? Judge Walker wrote:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite- sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Now, I come at this as a libertarian, as someone who passionately believes in freedom of choice. What restricts choice in libertarian theory? The answer is anything that violates the equal rights of others to life, liberty and their property. In a perfectly privatized, stateless world, what would restrict marriage? Nothing. Marriage would be a private matter and outside the influence or control of any body of people.

This is how marriage was seen historically. Marriage predates the church so it was NOT a religious institution. And marriage predates the nation state as well. Marriage became a state institution at the explicit demand of Protestant Christians. Contrary to the false claims of Religious Right, the state didn't take marriage away from the church, but Christian Protestants demanded the state take the function of marriage in order to directly challenge Catholic claims that marriage was only valid if performed within the Catholic faith.

In the absence of state control would there be any real limitation on whether or not same-sex couples could marry? Clearly not. Civil society has been recognizing same-sex couples as "married" in everything but name only, but not so the State.

In a state of natural liberty same-sex couples would be free to form marriages. Under the demands of the Christian Right of the day (Calvin and his followers) the state took control of recognizing marriages and began doling out liberties and rights on the basis of ones marital status.

As long as that is the state of affairs, under US constitutional theory, then the state must justify its restriction on the freedom of same-sex couples to marry. Over the centuries the courts have outlined what would, or would not, legally justify a restriction of individual rights. And we must be clear that marriage laws restricted the rights of same-sex couples to marry, while granting the same right to opposite-sex couples.

Judge Walker asked whether there was some compelling state interest that justified this restriction on the rights of same-sex couples. He said that the proponents of Prop 8 were unable to justify such restrictions. As such he ruled that the State may not restrict the freedom of same-sex couples to legally marry. Walker wrote: "Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest."

In other words same-sex couples ought to have more freedom of choice than the law allowed. This ruling does not expand State power but says that the State can no longer restrict the rights of same-sex couples. This ruling limits State power and expands individual choice and freedom. That is something every libertarian ought to applaud.

Prop 8 Trial Ruling Expected

As many of my readers know there was an amazing trial about the constitutionality of the anti-marriage Prop 8 ballot measure, sponsored by the Mormon Church through various front groups.

By coincidence I was reading transcripts of the trial when I heard that the judge in the case is expected to issue his ruling today (August 4th).

Whatever he rules it is not going to be over, the losing side will appeal. Of course, the plan was to take this to the Supreme Court from the start, so this is only early innings in this political game.

That said, I still hope the Judge stands up for marriage equality and disappoints the Mormons and their antigay allies. I will try to blog on the ruling the moment I hear something.

Catholics, Protestants, Hispanics and Gays

First I wish to cover some poll numbers that are not surprising. Next I will follow with how a major Religious Right leader takes those numbers and makes an incredibly silly statement because of it, even by fundamentalist standards.

A survey of Californians was taken which showed that the Latino community was divided on the topic of marriage equality, with a small plurality of Latinos being supportive. But, it was found that Catholic Latinos were far more supportive of marriage rights than were Protestant Latinos. Among Catholics, 57% said they supported marriage equality while only 22% of Latino Protestants held that view.

I suspect the reason for this stark divide is that Latino Protestants tend to be fundamentalists, often Pentecostals. It is fundamentalist Protestantism that has most strongly infiltrated the Hispanic community. Non-fundamentalist Protestants tend to be Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, both extremely antigay religions. According to the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, 85% of Latino Protestants are members of fundamentalist sects.

That Hispanic Catholics tend to be supportive of marriage rights for everyone upsets the Religious Right loon Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association. (Note that fundamentalists use "family" much the way the Klan uses "race," as code for hate.) Fisher notes that a Baptist leader, Richard Land, has said he wants a way for immigrants (without permission slips) to become citizens.

Is this Southern Baptist mellowing and recognizing the common humanity of others as the source of all rights? No, not at all. His reasoning is that Hispanic values are conservative.

"Hispanics are hard-wired to be like us on sanctity of life, marriage and issues of faith," Land told CNN recently, describing political similarities between Hispanics and white Southern Baptists. "I'm concerned about being perceived as being unwelcoming to them."

Fischer says that Land thinks Hispanics "will be the natural allies of the conservative movement." In other words, Land isn't concerned about the rights of these people, just hoping to enlist them in a movement to deny other people rights and as a way of imposing "biblical" values on the country through coercive government.

But Fischer is aware of the polls showing Catholic Latinos are supportive of the rights of gay people while Protestant Latinos are the only safe enclave of bigotry that conservatives can count upon. So Fischer suggests that "perhaps Dr. Land can be persuaded to amend his recommendation and give preference to Protestant illegal aliens." But Fischer says that illegitimacy rates may show that Hispanic "pro-family values" are not "as strong... as Dr. Land wants to believe."

The idea that only Protestant immigrants should be given a path to citizenship is astounding if you think about it but consistent with the historic values of American fundamentalism. It is no accident that the virulently anti-immigration Ku Klux Klan was heavily fundamentalist in religious make up. If there has been one trend among fundamentalists over the last century is their unique ability to always hate some identifiable group. Over the years different groups have jockeyed for their attention and often the emphasis has changed but favorite targets of organized hate campaigns have been blacks, Jews, immigrants, Mexican immigrants in particular, gays, Catholics, "liberals," and feminists.

The error that Fischer and his fellow fundies make is that they equate "pro-family" with a fundamentalist morality system. Prof. Joseph Palacios, of the Center for Latin American Studies at Georgetown University said that the pro-family attitudes of Latino Catholics is precisely the reason so many support rights for gay people.

Latino Catholics orient their social lives around the family and extended family even in the context of high Latino single-parent households (estimated 33% of all U.S. Latino households; 36% of all Latino Children in California live in single-parent households). Family solidarity is strong and even though children may not follow "traditional family values" as projected by the church and the U.S. society, parents want to keep their children within the family. It is not surprising that Catholics in general and Latino Catholics in particular, as the Public Religion Research study shows, see that parents learn about gay issues from their children. Their moral and ethical judgments are primarily made through this social reality rather than abstract pronouncements from their church leaders.

While the Vatican wouldn't approve, these Catholics see marriage as a way of binding families and they want their gay relatives bound to the family as much as their straight relatives. In truth marriage equality is the pro-family position. It is fundamentalism that pushes people to reject family members and splinter families in the name of morality. Parents in fundamentalist sects are encourage to reject and cast out family members for a variety of sins including being Catholic.

One of the great ironies of modern politics is that the pro-family movement is made up of sects that are inherently anti-family. Fundamentalism puts adherence to the faith ahead of family unity. The "you're no son of mine" mentality is rampant in such circles. Daughters who get pregnant are often pushed out to fend on their own, sons who are gay are rejected and told to leave the family. Over and over high profile fundamentalists have rejected their own children because of their perceived moral shortcomings.

Fundamentalism is not pro-family at all. It is a force that rips families apart. Latino Catholics don't necessarily follow the fundamentalist moral code but they do embrace their families. And their families include homosexuals. One indication is that Catholics are more likely to listen to the views of family members regarding this issue than are fundamentalists, who are more likely to take their views from a church leader. The family, especially for Latino Catholics tends to be source for moral values, while for Protestant Latinos (read fundamentalists for the most part) tend to take religious dogma over family.

Prof. Palacios also has an observation that is of interest to my readers in particular.

It is important to note that modern Latin Catholicism has a dual nature: it is "conservative" in the sense of family communalism and tradition that the church offers, yet it is classically "liberal" in the sense of not wanting the Catholic Church to have power in political life-- particularly after the long historical experience of the Latin American Church "meddling in politics." As Mexicans put it: "No meta en la política." A sizeable majority of U.S. Latino Catholics shares these attitudes with them. Increasingly they are joining their Latin counterparts in accepting gays and lesbians as part of the social family that is both Catholic and liberal.

This is a simple truth that fundamentalists have trouble understanding. One can be supportive of basic moral values without wanting to a church/state alliance forcing people to be moral. One can be personally conservative and classically liberal politically. Just because a moral principle is a good one to follow doesn't mean that it must be imposed at the point of the gun.

Note: For the record, Argentina has now legalized gay marriage, joining Spain and Portugal and parts of Mexico, with Uruguay next most likely to include gays in marriage laws. The photo is from Argentina.

By the numbers: what the polls show.

Democrats to lose big time

The latest poll data shows the Obama-led Democrats will suffer as badly as did the Bush-led Republicans. Obama has proven himself to be another Bush, albeit more articulate—but I have plants that are more articulate than Dubya.

Poll data shows that the Republicans may have reached the "tipping point" where the House of Representatives changes hands, back to the GOP. Over at Gallup they say:

Last week the re-percentaged share of the vote for Democrats among registered voters was 47%. Again, that’s among registered voters. If things go as usual, the percentage of the vote for Democrats among likely voters would be even lower. In other words, if the voter sentiment we picked up last week was to prevail up to Election Day, the Democratic control of the House would indeed be in peril.

I think it very likely that voters will punish the Democrats for Obama's power-grab in health care, a very unpopular move with around 2/3rds of voters wanting the measure repealed. Writers at Gallup were saying that 47% share of the vote the Democrats were on the cusp of losing the House. But since then, Gallup's own poll shows that support for the Democrats dropped down to 43%. Republicans are now 6 points ahead in the generic poll and with likely voters the spread would be even higher.

My own guesstimate would be that the Republicans are going to pick up 40 to 50 seats, given them comfortable control of the House of Representatives.

Other signs of Democratic weakness is that voters are now split three ways regarding party identification. Equal numbers say they are Democrats, Republicans and independents. The modern mugwumps are the independent voters, who have been vacillating between the parties, voting for whichever party least disgusts them at the moment, but never really voting for anyone. With independents the Republicans have a 14 point lead.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want a short cut method of predicting poltiical trends look at where the independents are on the issue. They are the swing voters and which way they swing determines elections. I still believe they are also the most libertarian of the three main voting blocks, but neither party gives them someone to vote for, only candidates to vote against.

The tipping point in gay acceptance.

Another milestone was reached, according to Gallup. For the first time a majority of Americans say that it is morally acceptable for someone to be gay—how nice of them! I find the whole idea that such a poll is necessary to be absurd. As I see it we don't ask if it is morally acceptable to be a Catholic, though with the actions of the Vatican, we might want to. The recent annual Values and Beliefs poll found that 52% of Americans say that being gay is morally acceptable while 43%, no doubt the god-besotted, say it is morally wrong for someone to be gay. In 2001 the numbers were 40% to 53%, so tolerance has gained 12 points in the meantime.

What is particularly interesting is that the gains have come predominantly from men, who tend to be less tolerant on such matters—perhaps less secure, but I won't go there. Since 2006 the percentage of men saying being gay is morally acceptable has increased from 39% to 53%, and for the first time men are more accepting of gay people than women, 53% to 51%. Where acceptance gained 14 points among men, since 2006, the gain among women was just 2 points.

The largest gains were among men under the age of 50, or those 18 to 49. Younger men are now the most gay-friendly of the gender/age groups, with 62% saying being gay is okay. For men older than 50 the number is just 44% but this is still a 9 point gain from 2006. Among women under 50 those who are tolerant has grown by 4 points in the last four years, to 49%, and for women over 50 it is 43%. Even among older people men are now more tolerant than women.

As for the bellweather independent voters, they are in tune with the younger voters: 61% of them of them say it is morally acceptable to be gay, which puts them in a tie with Democrats. Republcians, once again prove themselves to be the organized force of intolerance in America, with just 35% of them saying it is morally acceptable to be gay.

The religion split is also interesting. The most anti-gay group in religious terms would be Protestants, as a generic group. This is where we would find the fundamentalists, of course, so this is no suprise. Only 42% of Protestants saying being gay is morally acceptable, where 62% of Catholics, 84% of non-Christians and 85% of the non-religious say it is morally acceptable. Gallup reports:

There is a gradual cultural shift under way in Americans' views toward gay individuals and gay rights. While public attitudes haven't moved consistently in gays' and lesbians' favor every year, the general trend is clearly in that direction. This year, the shift is apparent in a record-high level of the public seeing gay and lesbian relations as morally acceptable. Meanwhile, support for legalizing gay marriage, and for the legality of gay and lesbian relations more generally, is near record highs.

Support for marriage equality is also approaching the tipping point. Already 56% of Democrats are on board, a gain of 23 points since 1996. Bellweather independents are at 49%, a gain of 17 points, and Republicans are at just 28%, which is still a gain of 12 points since 96. In the East and the West support for marriage equality is at 53%, in the Midwest it is at 40% and in the Bible-belt South support is just 35%. The tipping point on this issue is not far away.

Iowa is an interesting case on this issue, and seems to be following the Massachusetts pattern. Marriage equality enrages the religious who organize and shout, foam at the mouth, and spit venom. But most people just sit back and watch the events unfolding. As time progresses what they see worries them less and less. KCCI television in Des Moines polled Iowans recently and found that the majority now supported marriage equality: 53% to 41%. This comes after one full year of marriage equality in the state.

Health deform still very unpopular.

Obama's health care power-grab is highly unpopular among voters. Rasmussen polls show that 60% want it repealed and only 36% say they want to save the program. Most believe it will increase the federal deficit and most think it will increase health care costs, a small majority also being it will reduce the quality of care in the United States. I side with the majority on this one.

How politics follows social change, and doesn't lead it.

Politicians frequently have the courage to ban a dying practice, but only when it is on its deathbed. Of course, for centuries later they will continue to claim that it was legislative fiat that killed the practice and proof that their interventions are thus proper and necessary.

Child Labor

Child labor was not created by the capitalists as a means to exploit the working classes, contrary to the deluded history of Marxists. Child labor was widespread and rampant in the millenniums prior to the first capitalist-owned factory. The work was different, but the expectation that children would work, was common. Even today in peasant farming communities children are put to work in the fields the moment they can do anything useful.

The reason for child labor was simple: the productivity of any single laborer was relatively low, making it difficult for families to survive without every member of the family laboring for the food they needed. In pre-industrial Europe standards of living were extremely low, poverty rampant and starvation not uncommon.

The introduction of new modes of production offered families a means of actually starting to make progress in their death race with poverty. The new machinery made each worker more productive and more valuable. The children who flocked to the factories, along with their mothers and fathers, didn’t leave behind some idyllic childhood, roaming green valleys and picking flowers. They left behind hunger and death.

These “free labor” child workers were watched after by their parents and for the most part their lives improved dramatically. A second class of child laborers also existed, those under the care of various government agencies, usually at the local, or parish, level. It was these parish children who were the worst off, and the worst conditions described in relatively accurate, though exaggerated, tracts of the day were descriptions of the parish children—that is those children whose labor was being exploited by the local government. With bureaucrats, not parents, watching out for them, these children did have brutish and nasty lives.

As capital was invested in new production techniques the value of individual workers rose substantially. During this period there were steady and strong improvements in the standard of living of all working people. As wages rose, the ability of parents to care for their families, through their own wages alone, became more prevalent and the number of children working alongside parents declined. Increased productivity pushed up wages and the higher wages made child labor unnecessary. By the time the politicians got around to banning child labor the practice was no longer widely practiced. Had it been, it is unlikely the political classes would have banned it.

One unfortunate result of the labor laws that were passed, and which still exist today, is that young people find it difficult to secure employment. Part-time work is possible under certain conditions, but teens, who leave school for one reason or another, find it difficult to find full-time employment. Young people who are forced to leave violent and abusive homes find themselves on the streets with few legal options open to them. One result is that many teens turn to less than legal methods to earn a living—sometimes drug dealing and sometimes prostitution, as two examples.

In the zeal to abolish a practice that had largely died out already, legislation created legal straightjackets for young workers. The restrictions are so onerous that many young people needing full-time employment are forced into illegal occupations where “working conditions” are far more dangerous than from what the legislation was meant to save them.

Apartheid

Consider the matter of apartheid in South Africa. By the time apartheid was officially repealed it had already been dead.

Apartheid was itself a web of regulations and laws restricting voluntary markets in order to force a result that the central planners didn’t deem possible without coercion. That result was not just segregation of whites from blacks, but the reservation of particular occupations to white workers, or more accurately to Afrikaner workers. Apartheid was seen by its architects as a temporary system of racial preferences necessary to end the problem of “poor whiteism.” Of course, with the normal nature of bureaucratic expansionism it evolved into a system that was much more than this, and much worse.

Throughout the history of apartheid, legislation was used to force results into the marketplace. Companies that hired black workers were punished. This didn’t end them from hiring black workers, but it made it much more difficult. The trade unions in South Africa, including those backed by the Communist Party, were explicitly racist. And during the ill-fated Rand Rebellion of 1922 these workers marched through the streets of Johannesburg carrying signs saying: “Workers of the World Unite and Keep South Africa White.” Note: If you look carefully in the lower left of the photo you can see this sign being carried by the revolutionary unionists during the rebellion.

Prior to the election of the first clearly “apartheid” Nationalist government in 1948, earlier attempts at government-mandated racism were being pushed by the Communist dominated trade unions. The Mines and Work Act created job reservations for whites in 1923. But these laws were soon replaced with other pieces of legislation doing the same thing. Following the Rand Rebellion, a coalition government of the communist-dominated Labour Party and the white, racialist Nationalist Party came to power.

The enemy of this system was a class of men despised by the unionists and the nationalists alike: entrepreneurs and businessmen. The business classes in South Africa were primarily made of two minorities: individuals of English descent and Jews. And the Nationalist Party despised both. Virtually all the architects of apartheid were open haters of capitalism and free markets and immediately set about to politicize markets. The purpose was simple: excluding rural blacks from moving to the cities kept wages higher in the cities, benefiting trade unionists, and it suppressed wages for farm workers, benefiting Afrikaner farmers who were the backbone of the National Party. Together these two groups politicized the marketplace in order to transfer wealth from two despised classes—businessmen and blacks—to their supporters, farmers and unionists.

By the time I first visited South Africa, well before the release of Mandela and the end of apartheid, economic reality has already eroded the laws to a large extent. The Group Areas Act, which restricted where the races could live, had collapsed and “grey” areas were thriving. Blacks were flocking to the city, begging employers to “exploit” them at double the wages they would received in the homelands—that is if they were lucky enough to find employment there. With many Afrikaners having escaped the government-created jobs and becoming businessmen themselves, the pressure was on to loosen the laws that restricted labor supplies.

When Nelson Mandela walked out of prison the laws creating apartheid were still on the books, but the actual practice of apartheid had died long before. When these laws were repealed officially they had already been repealed unofficially throughout the country, by the natural forces of marketplace transactions. (Merle Lipton’s book Capitalism and Apartheid: 1910-1986 is a must read for this history.)

Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Act

In light of the recent debate about the Civil Rights Act, and whether or not it was necessary to ban private discrimination, this sort of history has some relevance. Based on what I’ve said it could be assumed that the Civil Rights Act didn’t create the change, as the modern Left claims, but was a result of a change that already taken place. Is that true?

Ilya Somin, points out the evidence that Americans had already changed their views on race by the time the Civil Rights Act was passed. He writes:

The Civil Rights Act was enacted in 1964 because “the thinking of the white portion of the country” had already changed over the previous 20–30 years. As Howard Schuman and his coauthors document in their comprehensive book Racial Attitudes in America, there was an enormous liberalization in white opinion on race from the 1940s to the 1960s. By 1963, one year before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act, 85% of whites polled in a National Opinion Research Center survey endorsed the view that “Negroes should have as good a chance to get any kind of job” and rejected the position that “white people should have the first chance at any kind of job” (endorsed by only 15%). This contrasts with 55% who said that “white people should have the first chance” on the same question in 1942 and 51% who said so in 1944.

Similarly, 73% whites questioned in a 1963 NORC poll embraced the view that “Negroes should have the right to use the same parks, restaurants, and hotels, as white people.” The same 1963 study also showed that 79% of whites rejected the idea that transportation in streetcars and buses should be segregated, compared to 54% who had endorsed it in 1942 (both the 1942 and 1963 questions used the same wording). The 1963 figures probably overstate the actual degree of white support for integration and equal opportunity. But it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that white opinion had moved strongly in an integrationist direction relative to previous years, and that discrimination against blacks in employment and public accommodations was opposed by a majority of white voters by 1964.

Schuman and his coauthors show that white racial attitudes continued to move in a more liberal direction after 1964. But the enactment of the Civil Rights Act does not seem to have accelerated the pace of change.

None of this means that the Civil Rights Act was insignificant. Although national white opinion was generally favorable to integration by 1964, southern whites were still much more hostile. Moreover, southern businesses that wanted to employ black workers on an equal basis with whites and/or serve black customers in an integrated setting were often prevented from doing so by state law and government and private violence. On these fronts, the Act really did make a major positive difference. The South probably would not have desegregated anywhere near as fast without it.

Somin is correct that violence against businesses that integrated was a possibility but it should also be noted that such violence indicates a failure of the state to fulfill its primary function: the protection of the life, liberty and property of the citizens. Discrimination existed because government in the South actively intervened in the marketplace to secure results that the politicians felt would not be possible without that intervention: in this case segregation. And for integration to fail to evolve it was necessary for government to turn a blind eye when it came to protecting the rights of businesses to act in a non-discriminatory way. For instance, Southern Streetcar companies actively fought racial segregation of their customers. Like the businessmen in South Africa, these companies preferred to act in a manner far less discriminatory than the politicians wanted.

To secure segregation Southern politicians actively politicized the labor market, without that intervention they would have found their segregationist cause severely hampered.

On unfortunate result of this debate is that everyone is concentrating on the aspect of the Civil Rights Act that criminalized private discrimination, as if that was the main thrust of the law. In reality the Civil Rights Act, for the most part, was a massive roll-back in governmental power. Law professor Richard Epstein wrote:

The primary feature of the Civil Rights Act was the removal of the formal barriers to entry that had been erected by the Jim Crow legislation. At this point the historical evidence tells a libertarian story, not a government intervention story. …The successes of the civil rights movement derived from the shrinkage, not the expansion of total government power, both state and federal.

The Civil Rights Act abolished the web of laws which Southern racists had erected in order to force people to act as if they were racists, whether or not they were.

Marriage Equality

We can again turn to one active civil rights struggle in America today—that of marriage equality for gay couples. A handful of states have ended the discrimination that existed against gay couples. But throughout the country private businesses have granted equal benefits to gay employees and their spouses—whether or not the law requires such things. The roadblock to marriage equality is NOT the private sector but the governmental sector.

Not only do laws exist which explicitly forbid the recognition of same-sex marriages but the legal system often interferes with private decisions to recognize such relationships, at least on equal terms. No private policy can remove the differential tax rates at which gay couples are taxed, nor can such policies remove the discrimination inherent in the social security system, US immigration laws, or other similar areas.

These policies will change, but they will change after the public has changed. As we already saw public opinion has shifted dramatically on this issue, and I suspect that shift will continue as the opponents to equality tend to be old and the old die out. In addition opponents tend to be strong Christians and religion, Christianity in particular, is also on the decline in the United States. This means that many of the young aren’t joining sects that would encourage them to be prejudiced.

So, reform is possible. But history seems to show that political reform rarely tips the social scales. Politicians rarely lead, they look for the trends and then try to jump in front of them, only at the last minute, and then claim credit for shifts that had already taken place. In reality, they do very little to change society, and in each of these areas the political classes actively worked to prevent the change that had taken place without them.

Death rates, gay marriage and health care

Infant Death Rates Continue to Decline

The death rates for children under 5 continues to decline around the world. Apparently the figures previously released by the UN's Children's Fund overestimated said death by 800,000. I note that the UN's figures on many of these issues seems always biased toward the bad news are and regularly revised downward some years later. I suggest this is the result of the political biasing that takes place when figures are accumulated to satisfy politicians.

It need not be said that the current estimate of 7.7 million such deaths for 2010 is far too high, but in 1990 that figure was 11.9 million. Half these deaths take place in Africa, plagued by corrupt, authoritarian governments. The role of the African state in this disaster can not be underestimated. And it should be noted more aid is not the solution as that aid is used by the vampire elite, who are causing the problems, to help cement their hold on the country.

Since 1970 child mortality rates have dropped 60 percent.

Long Term Polling Trends Indicate Gay Marriage is Coming.

The Gallup people have released their most recent figures regarding support for gay marriage. The trend lines indicate small, but relatively stead gains for marriage equality. When Gallup first asked about this issue, in 1996, 68% of Americans wanted to keep legal restrictions on same-sex marriage, and 27% favor deregulation and legal equality. Since then the opposition has declined by 15 points to 53% and support has grown by 17 points to 44%.
During that time support for marriage equality rose from 33% to 56% among Democrats (+23); from 32% to 49% among independent voters (+17) and from 16% to 28% among Republicans (+12). Even among individuals who say they are conservatives support has grown from 14% to 25%, +11 points.

Opponents to deregulation and legal equality remains most solid among people who consider themselves religious. Individuals who think religion is very important oppose equality 70% to 27%. If someone says religion is fairly important the opposition shifts slightly t0 60% against to 37% in favor. Individuals who are not into the mystical or theological tend to be rational about marriage as well, with 71% favoring equality and 27% opposing it.

As to be expected the American South, followed by the Midwest, tends to be most firm in opposition to equality of rights—but that's a tradition with those folks. In the South 62% oppose equality and 35% support it. In the Midwest it is 57% opposed to 40% in favor. The East supports equality of rights by 53% to 43%, as does the West, 53% to 46%.

Obamacare: As the truth seeps out the costs rise, support falls.

It was obvious to everyone, but the true believers, that the Obama White House was lying about the costs of Obamacare. Obama rammed his measure through by deceiving the public and bullying politicians, when not bribing them with taxpayer funds. The most recent figures and polls are not good news politically for the president and the Democrats who tied themselves to his coat-tails.

The most recent Congressional Budget Office estimates show that the legislation will cost at least $115 billion more than the cost that was given when the bill was passed. This means Obamacare will cost at least $1 trillion. Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institutes, says these figures are "a conservative estimate that is based upon unrealistically high assumptions about cuts in Medicare spending and unrealistically low assumptions about the cost of the new law." Actually that is par for the course in Washington. Most bills are passed by politicians who intentionally, and dishonestly, underestimate costs and overestimate benefits. Turner notes:

One reason is the billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes the law imposes that Foster says will "generally be passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums."

These include:

• more than $20 billion in taxes on medical devices

• $60 billion in taxes on health plans

• and $27 billion in taxes on prescription drug companies.

Foster's report also highlights the shaky financial footing of the new long-term care insurance program -- the CLASS Act, which Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., has described as "a Ponzi scheme of the first order."

Foster says the program faces "a significant risk of failure" and finds the program will result "in a net federal cost in the long term."

The CBO estimates that individuals and businesses also will face at least $120 billion in fines and penalties for failing to comply with the law's new health insurance mandates. And it says families purchasing health insurance in the individual market will pay $2,100 a year more for coverage by 2016 than they would had the measure not passed.

On the political front a substantial majority of Americans want Obamacare repealed. The latest Rasmussen poll on the issue finds repeal supported by 63% of the population while opposition to repeal sits at 32%. Support for repealing the measure has gained 8 points since March while support has declined by 10 points.

Even supporters of the measure don't believe the B.S. that Obama and Democrats were spreading about the measure. The public was told that the measure would actually bring down health care costs. But only 18% of the public believes that, well below the support level for the bill, indicating that a substantial number of supporters disbelieve the president—and with good reason as the CBO estimates show. Those believing the measure will raise costs include 55% of the public. Only 20% of the public think the plan will improve health care, a decline of 7 points. And only 12% believe the hype that the measure will reduce the federal deficit, a decline of 7 points.

Laura Bush, okay with gay marriage

This blog has argued for marriage equality. But I have also argued that the debate is much like a cricket game—the end is known but we have to wait for all the players to go through the motions. Laura Bush seems to agree. Not only does she think equal recognition of gay relationships to be the right thing, but she also thinks it is merely a matter of time. It will come, she says. Her point is basically my own. We just have to wait for more old conservatives to die. That is happening.

I also think a lot of older people will slowly change their minds. The same age group resisted equality for blacks but today most old folk accept it.

It is not just an age issue, as Laura Bush thinks. It is also a religious issue. And I have argued that the United States has entered the first stages of post-Christian era. The US is joining Europe in abandoning religion, albeit too slowly for my liking. But the data supports my theory—there is a major implosion taking place within American religious circles. The numbers of young people who openly say they are atheists has more than doubled in recent years—thanks in large part to the likes of Laura's husband. Interestingly the gay issue has pushed a lot of young people away from the church. Young Christians say that their church is bigoted and mean-spirited. And they tend to support marriage equality. So anti-gay bigotry is a loser for the churches, all the way around. This is a battle that the churches have lost already. We are just waiting for the inevitable.

The outrage of inequality

There are people who claim that marriage equality is unimportant because gay couples can secure the same legal rights before the law as other couples merely by paying thousands of dollars to attorneys to draw up a web of contracts for them to sign. Such people are either woefully misinformed, intentionally dishonest, or making the claim for some reason of a personal nature—perhaps they simply want to deny gay people equality of rights but don't wish to appear bigoted. They harbor their bigotry in their heart they just don't want you to know about it.

The reality is that life isn't as simplistic at the anti-equality advocates claim. Consider the case of Dennis Engelhard and Kelly Glossip of Missouri. The two met in 1995. Kelly was raising a two-year-old son from a previous relationship. Kelly and Dennis fell in love. Together they bought a home and raised Kelly's son together.

Dennis worked as a highway patrolman. On Christmas Day he had stopped to help at the scene of a minor accident. As he was standing on the side of the road another car lost control in the snow and slammed into him, killing him. It was a traumatic time for Kelly and for the son the two men had raised together. But quess what? Kelly doesn't legally exist, neither does his son. Yes, they are living, breathing, human beings who had shared the life of Dennis Engelhard, but when it comes to the law they don't exist. They are strangers to Dennis.

Engelhard's co-workers knew he was in a long-term relationship and that he and Kelly were raising a son together. It wasn't a secret. A blog at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch says:

If Engelhard had been married, his spouse would be entitled to lifetime survivor's benefits from the state pension system — more than $28,000 a year. But neither the state Highway Patrol pension system nor Missouri law recognizes domestic partners. A fraternal organization that provides benefits to the families of troopers killed in the line of duty is also unsure if it will help Engelhard's partner.

The "fraternal organization" decided they wouldn't help either, but more on that in a moment. The Governor priased Engelhard publicly for his service and referred to him merely as a "son and a brother" preferring to not even acknowledge that his partner, and their son existed. Patrolmen were with Glossip at the hospital where Engelhard was pronounced dead. The head of the local Highway Patrol said Engelhard was "an outstanding trouper. His lifestyle had no bearing on his career." So, it wasn't that the actual nature of the relationship was a secret.

The spouse of a heterosexual trooper killed in the line of duty would receive death benefits, as would the children. But the law in Missouri, thanks to the hard work of loving, compassionate, good Christians, specifically says that gay couples are not allowed to be recognized as spouses. The asshole Republican who chairs the Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement, Ward Franz, was asked about the case. He said: "I personally feel that a relationship should be between a man and a woman. They still love each other and care about each other, but I don't think we can change the law for that." No, of course not, why recognize relationships that are based on love.

Let us turn to Backstoppers. They raise funds for law enforcement workers and fire fighters who are killed in the line of duty. They used Engelhard's death to urge the public to donate to their group. Below is a video on that. (More text is below that but the video formatting distorts the space slightly and it may appear this post ends there.)


Backstoppers handed a check for $5000 to Engelhard's mother, not to his partner of 15 years. The director of the group, Ronald Battelle, says that they were not originally aware that Engelhard had a spouse of 15 years. But he also says it doesn't matter. Since its a gay relationship it doesn't count legally and, "The parents are the legal next of kin." Engelhard's spouse, and the son they raised, just don't count.

And the police fraternal outfit, Masters, has benefits for the family of deceased officers just not for gay families. The head of the group, Fred Mills, said: "We have never paid benefits to a girlfriend or boyfriend. It's always been spouse and/or children." Of course, Engelhard and Glossip considered themselves spouses but the law wouldn't allow them to legalize that relationship.

What has shocked me has been the intellectual disconnect that the bigots go through to justify this. According to them, there is no discrimination here. No unmarried "partner" of a police officer qualifies for recognition. Of course, the unmarried partners of heterosexual officers are legally able to marry while the partners of gay officers are forbidden to do so. So the logic of bigotry goes like this: "You don't need the right to marry, since you can have all the same rights as straight couples, through expensive legal contracts. But, you can't have the death benefits given to the spouses of deceased officers because you were not legally married and the law says you are legal strangers."

The head of a right-wing "think tank," the Missouri Family Network, Kerry Messer, dismissed the matter. He said: "Common law marriage doesn't exist in Missouri for a very good reason. It throws other laws into a tailspin and muddles every other policy. The state says 'get married or live with the status quo' That's true for gays and heterosexuals." What sort of moron is this man? The state doesn't tell gay couple they can marry, he helped make sure of that. It specifically says, "You may not marry."

I should note that the church that the couple attended set up a memorial fund for Dennis Engelhard and has said they will use the funds to help Glossip and the couple's son. The church also had a memorial service with Glossip and his son recognized. Rev. Mike Kinman, provost of Christ Cathedral, said: "Even if we have a state that's not going to to acknowledge a love and acknowledge a relationship, we're going to do that. And part of how we do that is by writing those checks. And so I encourage you to give, and to give generously."

The official funeral, attended by hundreds of police officers, never recognized Glossip or the boy. And anyone who doesn't think these laws are driven by pure hate and bigotry need only read the vicious and vile comments left at news sites about this story. It is shocking how monstrous people can be.

Nobody told us we had to have facts.

The conflict over Proposition 8, the anti-marriage equality proposal in California continues in federal court. A legal battle is brewing over the discriminatory nature of Prop 8. The proponents of Prop 8 have their lawyer in court defending the measure.

That lawyer, Charles Cooper, claimed that marriage equality would harm children. This is the sort of claim that the anti-equality advocates have been pushing all along. But a court room is not the place for meaningless, political sound bites. And the judge in this case, Vaughn Walker, wasn't falling for a sound bite.

Because Cooper had claimed that marriage laws further procreation, and allowing gays to marry would somehow harm procreation, Walker asked: "What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?" That's a fairly, straight forward question and one that Cooper clearly should have anticipated since he claims are central to his argument.

But Cooper seemed shocked by the question. He stumbled for words saying: "My answer is, I don't know. I don't know." Well, if the lawyer defending Prop 8 doesn't know how gay marriage harms the "procreative" purpose of marriage, who does?

At this point Cooper started proposing a Right-wing version of the flawed "Precautionary Principle," that environmentalist love to push. Under the Precautionary Principle one should not take actions unless one can prove they won't lead to harm. Proving a negative is rather difficult. It is a policy meant to prevent change and it is inherently conservative. Cooper argued that it doesn't matter if there is evidence that gay marriage harms marriage at all because "There are things we can't know, that's my point."

Without evidence that something does harm others, then I say the Liberty Principle applies. People are free to do what they wish unless it can be proven that their actions violate the life, liberty or property of others. This is the opposite of the Precautionary Principle. I do find it interesting to see Cooper resorting to a version of it to protect the interests of his clients.
He told the judge: "But it is not self-evident that thre is no chance of any harm, and the people of California are entitled not to take the risk." So, he argues, that he doesn't have to prove harm from gay marriage, he only has to imagine there might be harm and that is sufficient to justify policies promoting legal inequality. People who wish to exercise their rights must, however, prove that in so doing there is no possibility whatsoever of other's being harmed. How would one do that? It's not possible.

One thing about this case, that interests me, is that the anti-equality crowd will have to present facts and they aren't used to doing that. They rely on fear and innuendo and outright falsehoods. And those don't go over well in court.

Photo: Mr. Cooper of the Prop 8 campaign. Shortly after the photo was taken the Prop 8 sign fell to the floor, sort of like his arguments.

Another battle for marriage equality.

Like so many couples, this couple just wanted to get married. But when they showed up at the local justice of the peace he refused to perform the ceremony. His reasons is all too familiar.

First, he said, he wants everyone to understand, he's not bigoted. Nope, they never are, are they? He just said that this sort of relationship is just not proper—he doesn't believe in it himself. But, he's not prejudiced and doesn't like people saying he is.

Second, it really is about the children. You know children growing up in such atypical family homes have a hard time in life. And we must put the children first. He told the press: "My main concern is for the children." They aren't readily accepted by other people in the community.

It all sounds hauntingly familiar. These are the same arguments used by the Prop 8 folks wanting to ban marriage equality. They insist they aren't bigots , they just don't believe in this type of marriage, and, all they are doing is thinking about the children.

The couple in question is a man and woman. The local justice of the peace refused to marry them because she's white and he's black. This took place in Hammond, Louisiana—you knew it was going to be somewhere like that, didn't you?

Keith Bardwell is the local justice of the peace and refuses to perform marriages for interracial couples—in violation of the law. He insists he is not bigoted and that he is only thinking of the children. He sounds like Maggie Gallagher and others of her ilk.

What I appreciate about Bardwell's arguments is that by making them he shows them up for what they are—senseless. Yet lots of people will pooh-pooh the arguments when it applies to interracial couples but sudden spout the same rot when it is a same-sex couple.

A wothwhile look at the flaw of democracy.

I've been meaning to mention a piece I read by Jason Kuznicki, over at Postive Liberty. The unexpected rush of visits in the last week, and all the correspondence it created, meant I neglected to do so. So I wish to rectify my neglect immediately.

Jason noted a poll in Iowa about the impact of gay marriage in the state. It is rather remarkable because the poll, for the first time to my knowledge, asked people whether equal marriage rights had any impact on their life. Few did, 92% of the population said it had no impact on their lives whatsoever. Of the small percentage who said it had some impact, I would think many had to be gay people who were allowed to marry. In other words, gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, at least 92% of the Iowans said it had zero impact on them so they couldn't have been hurt by it.

However, the population is evenly split when it comes to abolishing this thing, that virtually none of them say, hurts anyone. Jason notes that: "Democracy makes it trivially easy to interfere with the lives of others." He explains that the median voter "cant be expected to care much about the rights of minorities, because by definition the median voter doesn't ever belong to a minority." This means that "he will therefore be indifferent to the interests of the minority. This doesn't bode well for minority rights of any kind whenever such questions come up."

Jason warns that: "We're all in a minority sooner or later, and we will all face that coldly indifferent media voter who can't see what the fuss is about, and who views deciding on our rights as something very important, even as something sacred rather than as something repugnant and shamefuly. Maybe his sacred duty will tell him to take away our rights, and because it's called democracy, it's all good just the same. That is what's wrong with democracy."

I can't see anything to disagree with there.

I must confess it baffles me how people can think that marriage equality ought to be taken away from some people, while at the same time, saying it has no negative impact on their life whatsoever. If that is the case, then why bother and get so heated up about it? I can see why some people get heated up in favor of it, it dramatically changes their lives. But I simply can't see any rational reason to oppose it. But then, as I've said before: When there is no rational reason for something there is usually an irrational one. And it's usually religion.

And now, to explain the photo, a public congratulations to Jason and his partner Scott, who recently became parents. Jason and Scott, have apparently sworn off sleep for the next year or so and consigned themselves to perpetual worry from here on out. Here is Jason with daughter, Alice.

Let's put it to a vote.

A cute commercial from Ireland about the absurdity of putting the rights of people to a public vote.

How Political Correctness may save Prop 8.

The bigotry of the Mormon Church may have been behind Proposition 8 in California, but political correctness may prevent the measure from being repealed.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which represents the Democratic Party more than the gay community, “is urging activists in California not to go back to the ballot next year to repeal the state’s same-sex marriage ban.” The ostensible reason for this is “that too much work remains to be done changing the minds of voters who supported the ban in November.” The same news story reports, “three groups representing black, Asian and Hispanic gays in California said they do not believe voter opinion has shifted enough to justify another costly campaign.”

This sounds plausible, and it is meant to, but the fact is that this is a big cover-up. In the world of political correctness you sometimes are not allowed to state the obvious. It was perfectly fine to discuss the role that the Mormon Church played in raising the millions to fund the campaign of lies that the Yes on 8 campaign ran. But it was a big no-no to mention that black voter turnout was a key factor in this bigoted measure’s passing.

Left-wing pundits have bent over backwards to recast the facts to try to hide the fact that anti-gay bigotry is higher in the black community than in other communities. And they are unwilling to discuss the role that the Obama campaign played in the passage of this measure.

If Prop 8 goes back to the voters in 2010 it is far more likely to fail even without a major shift in the prejudices of voters. The reason it is more likely to fail is that Obama won’t be on the ballot. Consider what Dan Walters, of the Sacramento Bee reported last November.

Supporters of same-sex marriage rights are fuming over California voters' approval of Proposition 8, which would place a ban on such marriages in the state constitution – especially since in other respects voters showed a somewhat left-of-center bent, including a massive victory by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Ironically, however, a mathematical analysis of voting and exit poll data indicates very strongly that it was exactly that pro-Obama surge that spelled victory for Proposition 8.

The only conclusion, therefore, is that as Obama was running up a 2.6 million-vote victory over Republican John McCain in California – twice the margins by which Democrats won in 2000 and 2004 – a great many Obama voters were also voting for Proposition 8, sponsored by a very conservative religious coalition.

Proposition 8, in fact, garnered 1.6 million more votes than McCain received. And, it's apparent, many of those votes – enough to make the difference – came from African American and Latino voters drawn to the polls by Obamamania.

An overwhelming, but not surprising, 94 percent of the former supported Obama, exit polling indicated, while 74 percent of Latinos voted for the winner. But 70 percent of African Americans also voted for Proposition 8, as did 53 percent of Latino voters.

Walters concludes that that had voter turnout in the black and Latino community not been swelled by the Obamatrons “chances are fairly strong that Proposition 8 would have failed.” Wow! That had the Left in a tizzy. First, Obama is the messiah and second, we shouldn’t say that there are bigots in minority communities. Thus the cover-up started.

Nate Silver used a bit of slight of hand to help the cover-up. He wrote, “the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters—the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent of their votes)—voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin.” Notice how Silver rather dishonestly changed the groups being compared. Black and Latino voters were not, for the most part “first time voters” at all. First time voters tended to be young people and young people did support Obama and did oppose Prop 8.

Silver continues with his dishonest analysis by saying “it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8’s passage.” No one said that at all. Walters, who Silver was trying to rebut, never made that claim. What he said was that the black and Latino vote changed the result. That the turnout was unusually high in those communities does not mean that the additional turnout was mainly “first time” voters. I suggest Silver realizes his errors but political correctness is political correctness.

Over at the Left-of-center Daily Kos one Obamatron (the Left-wing version of the Rondroids) shrieked about a “hateful racist fingerpoint from a white gay person.” So the Obamatron “blew off work that needed to be done… [to] put to rest, once and for all, this virulently racist idea that Black people are to blame for the passage of Proposition 8.”

I should note that black voters are not to “blame” but that the higher black turnout most certainly changed the results allowing the measure to pass. Blame is shared by everyone who voted for the measure. But, if Obama had not run for office, and if black voter turnout had not surged well above normal, the results of Prop 8 would have been different.

The Obamatron at Daily Kos, using the name Shanikka fumes about “anti-Black offenders,” and “white gay persons who have engaged in hateful, racist rhetoric and scapegoating” and tells them to “shut the fuck up.” Shanikka’s cover up relies upon bad math. Not knowing Shanikka’s gender, nor caring, I shall refer to the writer as him/her, or the equivalent.

Black voter turnout of total voters is normally 6% of the vote. In the Prop 8 election it was 10%. Shanikka said that is impossible “unless a million or so Blacks (he/she consistantly capitalizes this incorrectly) snuck into the state just before the election so they could say they cast their vote for Barack Obama on sunny California shores.” That simply is false, bad math, and an indication that he/she doesn’t understand percentages. The simplest way to prove that wrong is this: if the same raw number of black voters voted in the 2008 California election, but all other races stayed home, then black voters would have made up 100% of the voters without anyone sneaking into the state to vote.

Shanikka doesn’t appear to understand that percentages are relative numbers and can change when other factors change. A lower white turnout would increase the percentage of black voters. Shanikka seems to think that the percentage of black voters in an election can’t be higher than the percentage of blacks in the state. That merely indicates a lack of knowledge about percentages. While black voters make up 7% of the population of California, they could easily make up 10% of the voters in an election if they turnout in unusually high numbers while white voters vote in lower numbers.

That Obama was on the ballot did increase the number of minority voters in California. And because the election results were pretty clear before the California vote that decreased the likelihood of other groups of turning out. Shannika went through similar gymnastics in other areas with similar results. He/she claimed that it is a myth that “All Black people in California are old enough to vote.” No one said they were and that once again confuses raw numbers with percentages. He/she also said it was a myth that “All adult Black people in California are eligible to vote.” Again that confuses raw numbers with percentages. At least Shannika is consistent—making precisely the same error over and over just in different ways.

Another PC inspired cover-up was conducted by claiming that “after taking into account the effect of religious service attendance, support for Proposition 8 among African-Americans and Latinos was not significantly different than other groups.” That black Americans are inclined toward both religion and anti-gay bigotry, more so than white Americans is a fact. But that doesn’t change the fact that the high turnout of Black voters is a prime reason that Prop 8 passed. Factoring out relevant facts creates this cover-up. As one gay site claimed: “African-American and Latino support for Proposition 8 not significantly higher when religious attendance is factored out.”

Is religion correlated with bigotry? Yes, I would say it is. But that doesn’t change the fact that black voters were more likely to vote for Prop 8. That they choose to be more religious than most Americans doesn’t change that fact. Religion and prejudice are choices people make. Some groups are more likely to choose both than other groups. This is true of blacks and Southerners both. None of that changes the fact that the higher black turnout in November is a prime reason that Prop 8 passed.

There was one somewhat prophetic article published at Salon before the Prop 8 vote by LaDoris Cordell, who is an African-American lesbian. She wrote:

The Obama candidacy has energized African-Americans. Black voter registration is up, which bodes well for him. But here's the rub: Could a large black turnout also bode well for the passage of Proposition 8? Those who would ban same-sex marriage certainly hope so. They are counting on the "Obama Effect" to enlist black voters, along with conservative Latinos, into their ranks. Frank Schubert, co-campaign manager for Yes on 8, says that, "[T]o the extent that they are motivated to get to the polls, whether by this issue or by Barack Obama, it helps us." As an African-American lesbian who has been in a loving relationship for over two decades, I have been made well aware of the black community's discomfort with things gay. Our long and courageous history in the forefront of the struggle for civil rights notwithstanding, the leadership of black America -- politicians, ministers, business leaders -- has not been as outspoken as it could be and should be on the issue of gay rights.

Unfortunately Cordell was only somewhat prophetic. She recognized the widespread anti-gay prejudice in the black community but went on to write: "Black voters will, I predict, view same-sex marriage as the constitutional guarantee that it is, thereby giving new meaning to the 'Obama Effect.'" Ooops! Cordell was engaging in wishful thinking. She realized that antigay views were strong in the black community and may well determine the results of the election, but that was before the election, while she could entertain the hope that black voters would see the light at the last minute. It was safe to voice these fears before they became reality. Now, that they are reality, it is politically incorrect to say the same thing.

Over at Obsidianwings a blogger did a decent numerical analysis of whether the higher voter turnout among blacks shifted the results for Prop 8. His conclusion is that they did. Under normal turnouts black voters would be 6.7% of all voters. Under the abnormally high turnout for Obama they were 10%. This analysis finds that if blacks voted for Prop 8 in the same proportion as white voters the measure would have gone down in defeat. He notes that “if a small majority of black people voted against the measure it would have lost (49% Yes, 51% No gives the measure a loss of 50.4%).” But 69% of black voters supported Prop 8 so it passed.

No one thinks that there will be a huge shift in opinions before next year. That’s the problem. If there is no shift in opinions, or just a small shift, and if the repeal of Prop 8 passed, that would destroy the PC cover-up about the vote in the black community. NGLTF, and other fronts for the Democratic Party, don’t want to deal with the ugly truth about anti-gay prejudice in the black community. They wish to pretend it doesn’t exist or is irrelevant at best. A repeat election, with a lower black turnout, but one that repealed Prop 8, would destroy this pretense. So they made the choice to keep Prop 8 in place for a few years more in order to cling to their political correctness.

Even worse, if the repeal is not done in 2010 when will it be done? 2012? If 2012 that would mean during another presidential election and the Democrats will renominate their messiah, if that option is open to them. That would mean a larger black voter turnout again, though I suspect not as large as the glimmer of Obama’s smile fades. Delaying the vote to 2012 instead of 2010 will actually increase the likelihood of another defeat. But these Democratic-fronts are willing to risk that in order to keep their illusions alive.

I repeat that I am not saying that the black community is “to blame” for Prop 8. Most supporters of Prop 8 were white. But in a vote as close as Prop 8 it is the margins that matter. And black voters provided the margin. Most white voters opposed Prop 8. Most Asian voters opposed Prop 8. Hispanic voters were almost evenly split. Only black voters overwhelmingly endorsed the measure. And that was enough to change the results from “No on 8” to “Yes on 8.”

A lower black turnout in 2010, which is expected because Obama won’t be on the ballot, would be sufficient to allow the “No on 8” vote to win. But that is not the only factor that will bring about the repeal of Prop 8. Even a small shift in white opposition to Prop 8, which is likely, would cement that victory. In addition, it is questionable whether the Mormon sect would engage in the same sort of behind-the-scenes fund-raising campaign again.

The Mormon leadership wanted to hide their role in Prop 8. They did their best to deceive the public about their role in Prop 8. They used the church to raise funds for the measure and they provided the bulk of the funding used. They got caught. They lied about their role, they lied about their funding and they got nabbed doing so. They will be far more reluctant to get as heavily involved a second time around. Meanwhile the No on 8 voters are really pissed off. I’d double my contribution to a repeal and I suspect a lot of other people would as well.

My guess is that a repeal campaign would be better funded and the campaign to preserve 8 would have less funding. In addition, the number of states with marriage equality will be much higher than it was when Prop 8 went down to defeat. California was the second state with marriage equality. Now there are six and two or three more are likely by next year.

A third factor working in favor of any revote on marriage equality is that old people die. (I say that as a baby boomer who is old enough to worry about such things.) Old people were another anti-equality group in the election. In 2010 a number of the old people who voted for Prop 8 won’t be around to vote against the repeal. They will be replaced by young people who become old enough to vote for the first time, a demographic more likely to support repeal.

In addition we should note how weak Obama’s opposition to Prop 8 was in the last election. He did very little to oppose the measure. He didn’t want to alienate the black vote. What he has done is piss off the gay vote, and that is not insignificant for Democrats. Obama’s pathetic record on matters that impact the gay community, such as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

I have yet to hear a good reason that the repeal of Prop 8 shouldn’t be put on the 2010 ballot. I am not saying that one doesn’t exist but I’ve not heard it. What we are getting from the Left are excuses. More importantly they can’t analyze the situation accurately because their desire to be PC prevents them from dealing with the facts. They would rather put PC sentiments first and keep Prop 8 for several more years. Based on the facts, as we know them, the repeal of Prop 8 is likely in any election where Obama is not on the ballot. Yes, that means that 2014 would be a good year for repeal, but then so is 2010, and why let the injustice last another four years?

More alike than different.

The U.S. Census Bureau has been collecting data for years on all couples in the United States. But much of the data was never consolidated into any meaningful statistics, especially when it related to same-sex couples. The previous administration was hostile to the release of such information and preferred to follow the ostrich head-in-the-sand strategy: if we ignore them they don’t exist.

Now Martin O’Connell, chief of the Census Bureaus Fertility and Family Statistics Branch, said they decided to look at the raw data and see what it said. Same-sex couples basically had three options with the forms. Some ignored “legal” terminology and described themselves as “married” even if the law did not recognize them as such. Others checked the categories for unmarried and partners. And others simply checked neither and appear to be two individuals who just share an abode. Because of this the actual number of same-sex couples is probably skewed low.

What the Bureau found was that there are 55,967,091 male-female, married couples. There are 190,004 male couples who define themselves as married and 150,844 female couples who do the same, for a total of 340,848 gay couples who define themselves as married. Another 205,568 male couples say they are “partners” and 208,202 female couples say the same. That is another 413,770 same-sex couples who self-identified as such, given us a total of 754,618 self-identified gay couples in the country with obviously a large, but unknown, number of couples who did not self-identify at all.

The average age of a member of a male-female couple was 50. Among married male couples it was 52; 50 among female married couples; 44 for unmarried male partners; and 43 for unmarried female partners. The unmarried same-sex couples had the highest rates for both partners being employed: 69% for men and 68% for women. Only 50% of heterosexual married couples had both spouses employed. Among gay couples it was 47% for males and 52% for females.

When asked if both partners had a bachelor’s degree it turns out that among straight married couples it was 21%; 21% among male married couples; 24% among female married couples; 32% among male partnered couples; and 35% among female partnered couples.

Income statistics are equally as interesting. The average household income for straight married couples was $91,484. For male married couples it was $96,092, for lesbian married couples it was $93,044; for lesbian, unmarried couples it was $96,325 and for unmarried male couples it was $124,054. Thirty percent of married straight couples had incomes over $100,00 while 32% of married, male couples did; 38% of female married couples, 37% of female, partnered couples and 46% of male, partnered couples.

Home ownership rates are almost identical among all married couples. It is 84% for straight couples, 84% for male, married couples and 83% for female, married couples. For non-married male couples it is 71% and 70% for female, non-married couples.

When it comes to couples raising children there were some surprising statistics. Forty-three percent of heterosexual married couples were raising children. For lesbian married couples it wasn’t far behind, with 38% raising children. And 32% of male, married couples were also raising children. For couples, who did not describe themselves as married, the rate was much lower: 8% for male couples and 20% for female couples.

I think this cuts across some of the views of both the radical Left and the extreme Right. The figures for employment, home-ownership and income levels indicate rather strongly that any widespread discrimination in the employment market simply isn’t there. I would argue that markets tend not to discriminate especially if they are open to competition. Historically it has been those professions or industries, which had heavy government, control that tended to discriminate most against minorities. The more unregulated and free the market the less likely it is to practice widespread, consistent discrimination. Most discrimination suffered by gay people is government induced not in the private sector.

In a lecture, one far Right "economist" not worth naming, made some very stupid remarks where he contended that “homosexuals tend to plan less for the future than heterosexuals” and that they had a “spend it now” mentality.

He compared the actions of married couples with children to single, unmarried gay people. This sort of specious comparison is obviously flawed since one is not comparing homosexuals to heterosexuals at all but married individuals with children to single, childless individuals. That automatically skews the sample.

A fair comparison, which I doubt interested this man, who is known for his antigay sentiments, would have compared straight married couples with children to gay married couples with children. Since home ownership is a strong indication of “planning for the future” it is interesting to see NO differences between the home ownership rates of married gay couples with those of married, straight couples.

The data the Census people released would have been more interesting if they also include unmarried straight couples as well. But, from what was released here, we are seeing that gay couples don’t tend to be that different than straight couples, at least when we compare “married” couples to one another. Their employment levels were almost the same, with same-sex couples slightly ahead; their average ages were almost the same; their level of education was almost the same; their homeownership rates were almost the same.

It appears that "marriage" tends to make people very similar in their stability and economic performance. Conservatives have argued this for many years. But I have to wonder why they thought the same wasn't true for gay couples. Yet, the data seems to indicate it is.