Thanks for the enlightenment. Sadly, all that's necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

Thanks for the enlightenment. Sadly, all that's necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

Look people we need to start arguing the case smarter not harder, yelling in peoples faces and stopping rush hour traffic in a protest isn't going to win you anymore support, it may fire up the people that are already behind you but it will also fire up those that are against you.

The Pro Yes on 8 people ran a very slimey and underhanded campaign and made this more about teaching young school children about homosexuality than it was about the marriage issue and unfortunately it worked. We didn't come up with a good counter argument, we had good points but didn't make them very well. I really think the “put yourself in my shoes” argument will work when done properly, the No on 8 people ran a poor campaign and are paying the price now. We need to be far more creative and far more reaching in who we talk to and how we talk to them about this.

I do hope that people try to remember that the few gay people who are yelling about this being the black communities fault represent a very small group of people who are just getting air time because they are yelling something more controversial IMO. Most of us don't agree with this, if we did you would hear a hell of a lot more yelling lol.

HERE is a response to her post you might want to considrer:

Would a more effective outreach to African-American voters have really made a difference? Not according to relentlessly self-promotional Jasmyne Cannick, who claimed in a venomous Los Angeles Times column that black gays view marriage equality as a white gay issue anyway.

“I am a perfect example of why the fight against Proposition 8 … failed to win black support,” wrote Cannick, who is herself a lesbian. “Why? Because I don't see why the right to marry should be a priority for me or other black people. Gay marriage? Please.”

Here was Cannick, happily projecting her own unsuccessful love life – about which she blogs frequently – on everyone else, never stopping to consider whether homophobia in the African-American community might be responsible for disinterest in same-sex marriage. Tying the knot doesn't exactly fit the “down low,” “gay thug” lifestyle.

Conveniently, Cannick prefers the grievance/victimization route, claiming economic worries were more important to black voters. Well, duh. They were for white voters, too, in California and across the country. That's why a black man is now the president-elect.

It's divisive and simplistic for Cannick and others to present economic trauma and gay marriage as zero-sum options. Voters of every race could have voted their pocketbook in the presidential race without voting their bigotry further down the ballot.

The failure of so many whites and blacks within our “community” to see past their own race is discouraging proof of just how much remains to be said in our national “conversation” on race. We elected a black president, and still we can't just all get along?

What's worse, the cultural conservatism that seduced African Americans on Prop 8 was profoundly against their own interests, which is usually the way bigotry works. Because while Cannick may not see immediate marriage prospects, her black gay brothers and sisters do.

The statistics don't lie: African Americans marry at the same rate as the rest of the population – more than 96 percent will tie the knot at some point in their lives. The extensive bundle of fundamental rights and responsibilities that come with marriage and divorce, at the federal and state level, often determine on which side of the poverty line many will live.

Marriage equality and relationship recognition aren't simply the clearest example of our own government discriminating against us. In the real world, no single item on anyone's “gay agenda” has a greater impact on real lives, of all races.

I understand the practical stuff you mention. I do feel that that stuff could be looked at further and pulled into various parts for scrutiny in terms of political strategy.

Anyway, it's the part about marriage as “ideal” — as you put it What marriage represents in our society (whether or not people live up to this notion) — that has been getting to me, I think.

I don't know that this is particularly relevant as part of the political discussion, though. It is hugely relevant to me and my girlfriend, who have been discussing this stuff for the last few days.

But again, this is not necessarily part of the political discussion here. I do appreciate your answer, though. Combined with a fascinating discussion with one of my straight co-workers today, it has crystallized my own understanding, at least.

I believe that everyone should have the opportunity for a civil union and the rights and priviledges it affords. I think it's time those who want the opportunity to organize and take it to the higher courts. They need to stop scapegoating and start looking for feasible solutions.

You know what moment really got me to thinking about this issue? I recall when the California Supreme Court ruling first came down allowing homosexuals to be married, there was a lesbian couple who had been together something like 50 years. I remember crying when I saw them on the news. The image of these elderly women put a different face on the issue you know? I just knew it was right.

I don't know all the specifics of Proposition 8, but is it true that it had a provision that would allow churches to be sued for non-compliance? My husband mentioned this but I thought it farfetched.

Proposition 8 was not an affirmative proposition, i.e., its aim was not to set out any conditions for recognizing marriage between homosexuals but to nullify previous court rulings and statutes that recognized the legality of such relationships. No previous court rulings established any provisions for churches to be sued for alleged non-compliance. The proponents of Proposition 8 simply fabricated a story that if homosexuals were allowed to marry that it would lead to demands that churches allow these ceremonies to be conducted in their facilities. This is, of course, a blatant lie.

I am vehemently opposed to discrimination against gays. I just never really gave the marriage issue much thought. However, recent events have caused me to evaluate where I stand.

I don't know all the specifics of Proposition 8, but is it true that it had a provision that would allow churches to be sued for non-compliance? My husband mentioned this but I thought it farfetched.

I am curious to see Keith Olberman's special comment tonight. I would hope he has better sense than to add fuel to the fire started on DailyKos. know that he often get his stories from there.

When you do that, then you defeat the purpose. You are obviously bent on being silly and close-minded and i will refrain from bothering.

I am not being silly or close-minded. If I missed your point then explain what I missed rather than throw out accusations about me that have no basis in fact.

I love how I post a gazillion comments only to be ignored then to have people take me out of context like PTCruiser felt the need to do.

If you feel that I have taken your post out of context and subsequently misinterpreted or misunderstood your intent, then please explain what you meant to me so that I can understand.