The Pro-Obama, Anti-Gay, Black Electorate

An interesting analysis. I'm glad to read something to help lessen my anger towards those who supported Prop 8...

The church and the state are separate per the constitution. Your Marriage definition is a religious concept and as such can not constitutionally determine who can get married prop 8 is unconstitutional and denies equal protection per the 14th amendment to the US constitution for which the blacks and the jews paid a price. You should not impose your religious predjudices on the rest of the citizens. __I am a happily married, for 43 years, heterosexual

In an election...people are allowed to voice their opinions. I would be more inclined to question the motives of those who brought proposition 8 into the voting booth. Fox news and all of the other right-wing nut jobs blame the blacks for passing prop 8. IMO they are saying we can't get Pres-elect Obama so we'll go after his race. The percentage of [black Americans] are between 12-12.5%. There are 7 times as many whites in [CA] as there are blacks. 70% of the black voters in CA voted for prop 8; 49% whites voted for it; 49% Asians voted for it and 53% Hispanics voted for it.

According to the 2006 ACS Estimates, California's population was:

"59.8% White American,
12.3% Asian American,
6.2% Black or African American,
0.7% American Indian,
3.3% mixed, and 17.3% of some other race.
35.9% are Hispanic or Latino (of any race).[4]
California has the largest population of White Americans in the U.S., an estimated 21,810,156 residents. The state has the fifth largest population of African Americans in the U.S., an estimated 2,260,648 residents. California's Asian population is estimated at 4.5 million, approximately one-third of the nation's 14.9 to 15.1 million Asian Americans. California's Native American population of 376,093 (but some estimates place it at one million) is the most of any state."

I [doubt] that in two years the black population in CA is more than 7%.

1st: the writer/author is unreadable. Use a grammar helper or proof-reader. Got thru about a 1/3 b4 I quit!__
2nd: You are a hypocrite and since you don't have a AZ,CA or FL residency, your thoughts to enflame the huge radical left middle finger( & growing) of the Demoncratic party is not desired.__
3rd :Quinton is spot on. My Uncle and his partner of 50+ YRS ALSO AGREE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE THIS JAMMED UNDER OUR COLLECTIVE THROATS BY THE CA ST.SUPREME COURT WHO DID NOT TAKE LOTS OF WESTERN STATES ADVISE TO DELAY THIS DECISION THIS ELECTION YEAR. WE PLAN TO IMPEACH THEM AND THEY STUPIDLY DECIDED AGAINST THE WISER UTAH,AZ,NM & MTN STATES TO HAVE US YES VOTERS OVERTHROW THERE DECISION AGAINST 4 MILLION VOTERS IN 2000. RABBI HIRSHFIELD YOU NEED TO QUIET YOUR PANDERING / INFLAMATORY RHETORIC TO YOUR PARTIES RADICAL LEFT MIDDLE FINGER.

Rabbi Hirschfield, this was a very good piece. My husband and I had plenty of arguments over Prop. 8 (obviously, we live in California) I was totally against it and he was leaning toward voting "yes." (Don't know how he voted for certain.) I have known several long-term gay couples, really good, hard-working, caring people, and if something called marriage would make them happy, I had no problem with it. Contrary to the rumors that were tossed about, no one was going to force a minister, priest or rabbi to officiate at a gay marriage or make any religous group recognize such unions. It was not going to harm children or in some, undefined way "destroy marriage." As I noted to my husband, heterosexuals have been "destroying" marriage for centuries, so if the institution is in peril, we cannot blame gays. ____ The rabbi who married us (he is Orthodox although we are not) several years ago said it was kinder to allow civil marriage for gays and he would not object to it, though of course, he would not officiate at such a union. I really respected him for that. It took courage for him to speak up when he knew many would disagree.____ I know people object to homosexuality because of certain prohibitions in the bible, particularly in Leviticus. I have always suspected that these prohibitions did not refer to monogomous gay unions (which were probably quite unusual in ancient times) but to far more sinister behavior involving pagan religous rites, dominance and abuse. I figure that no matter what, if two people care for each other and support each other, without harming anyone, we can afford to be kind to them. I don't see why we cannot be generous and allow them civil marriage. If we want to protect marriage, we should look to how we behave to our spouses, not worry about a few gay couples.

CORRECTION:

I am pleased that Rabbi Hirschfield has opened up the "gay marriage" issue for discussion - and that he has stated at least a portion of
what I've been thinking - that those of us who oppose changing -
and twisting - the dictionary definition of the millennial word "marriage" - and turning it into an oxymoron - are NOT hateful bigots and homophobes.

While certainly homosexual couples deserve the same rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, health care benefits and decisions, and the like, they don't deserve the right to force the rest of society to call day night and night day.

Rabbi Hirschfield when he attempts to justify why he would have voted against Prop 8 says that "...experience teaches me that when it comes to hearing the voice of God, there are many ways to hear. In fact, if the voice of the God in whom any of us believes can be compressed into a single understanding or doctrine, we would be listening to a very small God. And the God in whom I believe is infinitely large."

He goes on to further say: "As a traditional Jew, my best understanding of what is religiously demanded of my (sic) by God, precludes gay marriage. But I do not believe that my understanding need be everybody's for two important reasons. First, while I believe that religious wisdom can contribute to our thinking about public affairs, there is no room in this country for religion dogma to make public policy."

My responses:

1.) If there's no room in this country for religion dogma to make public policy, why is there room for a powerful gay lobby to make public policy (a lobby which uses the specious claim of homophobia to manipulate voters and stifle dialogue)?

2.) If there are many ways to hear G-d, it seems to me there are ought to be many ways way to define gay unions. We created words like font, icon, and internet; surely there could be a word to describe gay unions.

3.) Rabbi H. says: "As a traditional Jew, my best understanding of what is religiously demanded of my (sic) by God, precludes gay marriage. But I do not believe that my understanding need be everybody's..."

Why though is it acceptable for the homosexual community to expect their "understanding" to be everybody's?

4.) Not only has the word "marriage" been redefined (hijacked), but also the word "wedding" -- and there may be additional definition changes coming down the pike. I live in Connecticut, where "gay "marriage" was recently legislated without voting input from its citizens. A recent CT magazine article quoted a gay woman as saying that she and her partner refer to each other as "wife." Does that mean that the words "husband" and "wife" will also be changed? Can I then too, at my whim, open the dictionary and change some words to suit my purposes?

Sorry - with all due respect to homosexuals, I resent being forced to contort my thinking and accept something as normal that if we're to be honest about it, simply is not. It is bordering on criminal that most people - myself included - don't feel comfortable speaking publicly on this issue for fear of being branded with a scarlet letter and accused of burning a proverbial cross on someone's lawn.

Rabbi Hirschfield's comments are just polite bigotry. And his statement that he cautiously opposed Prop 8 after doing all that soul searching is just cloaking his prejudice in the cruel language of realpolitik. I hope someday a mob of nutjobs puts a proposition on a ballot defining marriage as a Christian institution between one Christian man and one Christian woman. If that happens, I will write some wishy-washy blog saying, "I guess I oppose this proposition, even though I see why supporters think marriage is a Christian institution, and I think the Jews, Muslims, and atheists who are calling these Christians bigots are being extremist."____Rabbi, most of us are not rich rock stars without a care in the world like Elton John. I don't care whether he wants to get married or not

Also, last time I checked, Elton John isn't even a citizen of the United States, let alone a citizen of California.

I agree with JOyafrica77. I am white Jewish and born in Latin America__and I agree because not agreeing with gay "marriage"does not mean not agreeing with any sort of formality that would legalize a situation giving equivalent rights to people that consider themselves gay. __In my view to simplify the situation the word"marriage" could be changed.The problem resides in that "marriage" implies a religious union and that is the core of the issue, not the union itself.__On the other hand I cannot understand why these very private issues cannot be kept private so everybody can live their lives in peace without a host of others voicing opinions.

joyafrica____Black people have not gone through more oppression than any other group. that isn't historical and even if it was it's not a good argument. Black people are allowed to get married and they can now marry white people when they could not in the past. Gay people are not allowed to in most states in America. THat's what's important.____I'm tired of people bringing up slavery every time a minority wants equal rights. It's an excuse to act like bigots when you go to the voting polls.