Distracted by the historic victory of Barack Obama which may usher in a new era of American politics, election watchers have mostly missed the devastating defeats which went hand in hand with that triumph. As Obama is ushered into office on a groundswell of support for change, there is a grim reminder that not all change is for the better.
In Arizona voters passed proposition 102 which will amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. In Florida a constitutional ban on gay marriage passed with a substantial 62% majority. It now looks likely that California's controversial Proposition 8 will pass narrowly, reversing court-mandated gay marriage rights in California and banning gay marriage statewide, despite opposition from the state's Republican governor and many prominent GOP leaders. And in Arkansas a measure passed banning not only gay adoption, but also adoption and fostering by single individuals. In a similar failure of civil rights initiatives, a proposition in the city election for San Francisco which would have decriminalized prostitution also failed.
These troubling new laws circumscribing civil rights in states in which Obama had a stronger than expected showing would not have passed without substantial support from Democrats. In fact, it is most likely that religious African American voters who turned out in large numbers for Obama swung the tide in favor of limiting marriage rights for same-sex couples in an ironic contrast to the struggle for interracial marriage rights in the early days of the civil rights movement.
Not all of the down-ballot issues turned out so badly. Initiatives to decriminalize marijuana passed in both Michigan and Massachusetts, plus harsh measures restricting abortion rights were defeated in South Dakota and Colorado. Also encouraging was Arizona voters' strong turnout against a draconian measure which would have revoked the business licenses of companies hiring illegal workers.
It was the highest profile issues which fared the worst with voters, a distressing reminder that change comes at many levels and it's not all for the better.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dr Dreadful
California Prop 8 is one campaign where deceptive scaremongering seems to have worked. I don't know where we go from here, except to the Supreme Court (yeah, right), another ballot initiative in four years to repeal the amendment, or simply ignore it.
The one that really made my eyebrows pop up was the one in Arkansas. Because it gives the finger not just to gay couples but all unmarried couples, I simply do not see how it can possibly be constitutional. I think it'll be laughed out of SCOTUS.
2 - Lisa Solod Warren
I know, the Arkansas thing is awful. It's better that kids grow up without parents at all? I don't get it.
3 - Baronius
Actually, Dave, the measures in Arizona, California, and Florida were victories. Gay-marriage bans were approved.
4 - Lisa Solod Warren
And why, pray tell, Bar, are those victories? Why does it matter to you whether gay men and women marry?
5 - Jordan Richardson
Ah well. Can't expect too much progress on one night, eh?
6 - Dave Nalle
Baronius, like real republicans I believe in the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence - that ALL men are created equal. Not just those with one sexual preference.
The law of contracts and the right to free association are fudnamental rights which transcend even the Constitution. If the GOP does not stand up for those rights, then the GOP is worth nothing.
Dave
7 - Baronius
Lisa, I was only point out the semantic error. If something passes, it is victorious. If something fails, it is defeated. Dave voices a bias when he calls three victories "defeats".
I know, it's an opinion article. It just interests me the way preconceptions influence our thinking.
8 - Matthew T. Sussman
Baronius might be meaning they were "victories" in the sense that the props passed, not victories in the ideological sense.
9 - Matthew T. Sussman
Note to self: refresh the page before commenting, dipshit.
10 - Baronius
heh
11 - Jordan Richardson
Baronius might be meaning both. *muah*
12 - Dr Dreadful
The more I think about it, the more bizarre this Arkansas measure seems. For the reasons Dave mentions above and about a million others, there's no way this is constitutional.
I think the anti-gay lobby has made a major error here. If the opponents of this one take the matter to the Supreme Court, it will be overturned - and bring all the state constitutional bans on gay marriage crashing down with it.
13 - sfnative
This is just the tip of the iceberg for gays in California. The right wing smells blood, and they now know who is good for the money. The next ballot initiative you see in California will be a toned-down, passable version of the Arkansas gay adoption ban, which IMHO has a good chance of passing here.
A line is being drawn in the sand for gay rights in this country that will take at least two decades to erase.
What I’d really like to see now is a movement to get the IRS to revoke the Mormon Church’s tax-exempt status for the shameless use of church resources in passing Prop. 8. Heck, we could get the funding for universal health care from that revenue stream alone!
14 - Jet
Having lived through the era of Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" and Anita Bryant's hate campaign, I can tell you that the scars are deep on kids growing up in that timeframe.
I truly fear it could happen again.
As it's been pointed out before, "Sodomy" laws apply to straight couples too concerning oral or anal sex. What straight people in Georgia used to be arrested for (and some still are) astonished me.
Some of the most horific damage and deaths in this world was done in the name of God. The idea that Anita Brainless put forth is still very much in the American mind-that Homosexuality is not something you're born with, so it logically follows that there are bands of faggots roaming the countryside looking for little boys and girls to "recruit".
That's why they use "They want to teach our children in kindergarten about homoSEXuality" as a way to scare people into voting for these hurtful legislative bills.
God help us...
15 - Mark Schannon
Excellent point, Dave. I had heard of California's stupidity but not the rest.
As we celebrate Obama's victory, we need to remember that there are many out there who believe in denying basic human rights to certain people. The civil rights movement may have made great strides, but the battle is far from over.
And, as you suggested, this ain't a Dem or Rep, liberal or conservative issue...thoughtful people from across the political spectrum should be offended & outraged at these initiatives.
Well done, sir.
In Jameson Veritas
16 - Baronius
SF, when the Calif. court ruled in favor of gay marriages, did you say that the left wing "smelled blood"? Did you consider that a line in the sand?
What kills me is that we talk like every culture in all of history has been supportive of gay rights until this particular moment, when something universally viewed as just is being taken away. Nonsense. Human civilization has almost unanimously held a "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward homosexuality. Now gay associations are petitioning for the same protections as heterosexual marriage. That's wrong. Even crazy liberal California could recognize that it goes too far.
17 - Matthew T. Sussman
The most curious statement earlier this week came from Obama on MTV who said in his opinion, marriage is between a man and a woman. He was also against CA Prop 8. Head ... hurty.
18 - Lisa Solod Warren
Ok Bar
weird but
19 - Baritone
Bar,
"Now gay associations are petitioning for the same protections as heterosexual marriage. That's wrong."
In what way?
There are a number of mores which have come and gone throughout human history. Many long held beliefs have been found to be inappropriate or outdated and then discarded. To specifically exclude a significant segment of our society of basic rights and privileges goes against the very basis of a free society. I fervently hope that all of those measures get the shit knocked out of them in the courts.
If you find homosexuality offensive, I suggest that you refrain from sucking dick. Others don't necessarily share your distaste. It's none of your business, and certainly none of the government's business.
B
20 - Lisa Solod Warren
Oh Baritone. That last graf will go down in blog history as a classic. Right on.
21 - Baronius
Bar, then the government shouldn't be in the business of granting the special status that it gives to married people to a relationship that's very unlikely to produce unexpected children. Because that's really what legal marriage is. It's a privilege granted to a couple out of recognition that they're more likely to face certain financial inequities. It's a set-aside, and one that you can't justify expanding.
22 - Jet
I believe the same was said of interacial marriages 20 years ago
23 - Baronius
Ah, the Beethoven argument. Beethoven wasn't appreciated in his time, now he's popular, I'm not appreciated, therefore I'm as good as Beethoven.
24 - Dave Nalle
I now see what Baronius was saying earlier and acknowledge his semantic point. But based on his later comments I still find his entire perspective suspect.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Government sanctioning of marriage is unconstitutional. It is a direct violation of the first amendment, because it is the establishment of a religious sacrement as a function of government. The government should register contracts between individuals like a civil union, but marriage should be reserved for churches.
Dave
25 - Baronius
Dave, in order to justify civil marriage, you have to do some really unlibertarian interpretation of the "general welfare". But I'm comforted by the fact that all the Founders made that jump.