Saturday, November 22, 2008

What the Prop 8 Exit Poll Results Tell Us

The GLBT activists promoting gay marriage have argued that marriage is about romantic love. I think marriage is about heterosexual procreation and family formation for child rearing. Let's look at the exit poll results to see what married people with children thought about Proposition 8:
Married w/ Children (31% of voters)
Voted Yes: 68%
Voted No: 32%

Not Married w/Children (69% of voters)
Voted Yes: 45%
Voted No: 55%
We can see that married people with children voted overwhelmingly, 68%, for Proposition 8. This is because they have lived the experience of marriage with children and know that marriage is about something more important than romantic love.

When we look at the exit poll results by age, we see that for every age category over 29 years old, the majority supported Proposition 8.
18-24 (11% of voters)
Voted Yes: 36%
Voted No: 64%

25-29 (9% of voters)
Voted Yes: 41%
Voted No: 59%

30-39 (17%of voters)
Voted Yes: 52%
Voted No: 48%

40-49 (22% of voters)
Voted Yes: 59%
Voted No: 41%

50-64 (26% of voters)
Voted Yes: 51%
Voted No: 49%

65 or Over (15% of voters)
Voted Yes: 61%
Voted No: 39%
Young people tend to conflate marriage and romantic love. Those with more life experience tend to know better.

It is particularly important to look at the exit poll results by gender and race:
White Men (31% of voters)
Voted Yes: 51%
Voted No: 49%

White Women (32% of voters)
Voted Yes: 47%
Voted No: 53%

Black Men (4% of voters)
Voted Yes: N/A
Voted No: N/A

Black Women (6% of voters)
Voted Yes: 75%
Voted No: 25%

Latino Men (8% of voters)
Voted Yes: 54%
Voted No: 46%

Latino Women (11% of voters)
Voted Yes: 52%
Voted No: 48%

All Other Races (9% of voters) 49% 51%
Voted Yes: 49%
Voted No: 51%

While the media has been reporting that 70% of Blacks voted Yes on Prop 8, when further broken down by gender, we find that 75% of Black women voted Yes on Prop 8. Remember that about 70% of Black children in the USA are born out of wedlock. While the media has been presenting the Black vote as a Black church issue, I think we should see it as a call for help by Black women. They need society to help them get their men back into marriages and supporting their children.


BillyD said...

I would think that you could only draw the conclusion you do if you had the breakdown on how Black men voted.

Dr.D said...

What does it mean that 53% of white women voted "No"? This is saying something that I for one find profoundly unsettling. It seems to indicate that the majority of white women in CA have bought into the pro-gay agenda/anti-family agenda. This is extremely bad, bad news!

Perpetua said...

Hi Billy D,

We can back out how Black men voted because we know that 70% of Blacks voted Yes. Since Black men were 4% and Black women were 6% of all voters, we know that Black men were 40% and Black women were 60% of Black voters. Using those numbers, we can derive that Black men voted 61% for Prop 8.

Perpetua said...

Hi Dr. D.,

I think they are conforming to the political correctness promoted in graduate schools. I didn't post the statistics on education, but you can see them follow the link. Only people with graduate degrees opposed Prop 8, and it was significant, 60%.

H.S. Graduate (14%)
Voted Yes 56%
Voted No 44%

Some College (33%)
Voted Yes 57%
Voted No 43%

College Graduate (33%)
Voted Yes 50%
Voted No 50%

Postgraduate (17%)
Voted Yes 40%
Voted No 60%

BillyD said...

Thanks for doing the math, Perpetua. I would still be in front of my calculator (and using my fingers and toes) trying to do this. Anything other than simple sums and averages is too arcane for me.

I suggest that the high numbers of Black women might be explained by the greater involvement of women in Black churches; they seem to outnumber men two to one ( Blacks supported Prop 8 more than other racial groups across the board; you don't think that the high numbers of Black men voting "yes" is a cry for help from them, do you?

BillyD said...

Hhmm, blogger doesn't like the length of the URL I tried to include as a source for the involvement of women in the Black church...

Perpetua said...

Hi Billy D,

I accept that significantly more Black women than men are involved in churches.

However, I don't think Black people were blindly/ naively following an arcane rule from the Bible when they voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8, that marriage should be between a man and a woman. (As a corollary, I assert that to suggest that Black people need to be educated by GLBT activists is insulting.)

People know from experience that children are better off when raised with both a mother and a father in the home. And Black people have seen the devastation caused by so many children raised by single mothers.

So, yes, I believe that the Black men who voted for Prop 8 would like social support for Black family formation and encouragement for Black men to marry their women and be fathers in the home to their children.

karl.rosenqvist said...

Personally I think marriage is about something less important .. tax, daycare and legal rights/responsability in the event of a divorce.
Standing in a church before a priest with my love beside me and my family and friends and anyone who wishes as witnesses .. that is about romantic love.

Perpetua said...

Hi Karl,
So are you saying that you think adult romantic love is more important than child raising e.g., parental responsibilities in time and money?

Dr.D said...

It seems to me that Karl is trying to reduce marriage to nothing more than a contract which is exactly what the pro-gay marriage folks have been trying to do. Marriage is much more than that. It is the establishment of a permanent bond between a man and a woman with the full potential to lead to the creation of a new family -- children, grandchildren, etc. -- on the basis of a bond that endures forever. Even at the death of one of the partners, although the bond is changed, it is not completely severed. Marriage is a sacramental union that changes us forever, and that is a good bit more than taxes, day care, etc. Perhaps Karl would like to reconsider.

flmignon78 said...

I'm trying to understand something... So, if "[marriage] is the establishment of a permanent bond between a man and a woman with the full potential to lead to the creation of a new family -- children, grandchildren, etc. -- on the basis of a bond that endures forever," then if I am a married infertile man, and my wife is barren, are you suggesting that we need to divorce because my marriage does not conform to your definition?! What now, am I supposed to get divorced, and give up our adopted children because your God doesn't think I should have the same rights you do that I (fortunately) have been partaking of?!! My marriage does not affect you, and these beautiful adopted children have not turned into juvenile system mess-ups who want to commit suicide because they don't feel that they received a fair upbringing; so why do you care about our ability to produce children and create what you call a "family"? Since I have no proof that Jesus, God, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny exist or ever did, are you intending to say that the work of literature in which angels used to appear, water turned to wine, a half-god/half-human born to a woman who hadn't had sex, who also did magic on dead or maimed people... are you suggesting that your reason to continue to discriminate against gay marriages is because this so-called god said that only those of child-producing potential can unite in love and harmony; and that those who can not bear children should not be in a relationship? I am so amazed that the constitution even allows so much discrimination on the basis of book who claims that miracles and a god exist, yet it's supposedly authored by people who speak on behalf of the same god that allowed so many to loose their lives on September 11, 2001. While I'm on that subject, then should Muslims not be allowed to Marry, because their God is not the same God as the Christian God? Are Muslim marriages also supposed to be invalid because their God, who has no image- let alone a Son who worked miracles and died for all those who would "repent" and be saved- is not the same God who supposedly created Adam and Eve in his own Image, and who dictated the Bible through revelation and inspiration of His devoted followers? I understand banning smoking in public places- I don't smoke, and if I am in a public area where I'm subjected to smoke, my health is affected. I do not understand the opposition to gay marriages- if they marry, they aren't hurting me. If what they do in bed is taboo- so what! they tend to have the courtesy and common sense to leave me out of their bedroom life, and I'm not bothered- the idea of my mom and dad getting intimate sounds gross to me- but that's their business, and they don't share the details with me. If you're so bothered by something that doesn't affect you, is it because you've been traumatized or had an unsolicited inappropriate experience that went bad. Sorry for the ranting, but I just don't understand discrimination. Maybe if gay people thought they could have relationships that could endure, and which would be protected by law, maybe they wouldn't feel the need to be as promiscuous as so many think they all are (which is their own business), and their behaviors would change if they thought that their natural desires could amount to a legitimate relationship that was legally binding as my marriage is to my wife. As one of my gay friends put it- "why not be promiscuous, when regardless of who [of the same gender] I'm with, I'm considered subversive and an evil-doer. If I'm going to die alone, I might as well die having fun."

Perpetua said...

Hi flmignon78,

Thank you so much for taking the time to write out your thoughts and share them with us. And please know that I admire you and your wife for adopting children.

I am concerned that you may be teaching your children an unhealthy attitude toward sex if you indeed think that "the idea of mom and dad getting intimate sounds gross". I agree it is inappropriate to intrude on their privacy by indulging in imagining their intimate behavior. However, it is such behavior that creates life, and to have an attitude that it is gross may create a variety of problems for yourself and your children.

With regard to the inability to conceive and bare children, I think you know that in many cultures, this is grounds for divorce. It is/ was considered appropriate to release the couple to try to procreate with a different spouse.

In our society, remaining together and adopting children as you and your wife have done is fully accepted and even socially admirable. However, it should not be used as an excuse to confuse the underlying biological realities of sexuality and procreation.

With regard to your discussion of gay promiscuity, you seem to be assuming that gay couples have no alternatives under California law. In fact, California does have a Domestic Partners law. Proposition 8 was only about the definition of marriage and did not take away the rights of Domestic Partners in the California Family Code, which reads:

"Family Code section 297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."

Best regards,

flmignon78 said...

First, I regret if I gave the impression that I was teaching my children my opinions of the idea of my mom and dad getting intimate- that would be hypocritical if I were to do so; instead, I keep my opinion on the matter in my head and I don't go vote it illegal. I relate non-familial based factual scientific explanations to questions that arise. The loving relationship between my wife and I, and the close friendships I have with those against whom I do not discriminate, are example enough to our children of the natural and non-judgemental way to behave and approach unfamiliar subjects.

I appreciate your comments on the biological realities of [sexuality and] procreation. However, just as some people, no matter how hard they try, will never become owners or managers of a business... some people, no matter how hard they try, will never procreate. The non-owners(non-managers) contribute to the integrity of the business, as the non-procreaters contribute to the integrity of the family. A business can be self-run, as with an enterpreneur. Not all businesses have the same definitions either, as in concepts such as "worth" "productivity" and "value". Not all family structures have the same definition for "parent" either- I for one, being adopted- could never grasp what a "dad" or "mom" was, since I had two of each, but neither were in a same sex relationship. Should the word "family" be re-defined to specify a man and a woman who produce at least one offspring? No- that would be ridiculous. Why does "marriage" have to be defined? I will choose to consider both my fathers and both my mothers my family, regardless of any legal, scholastic, or other type of definition you throw at me. It's a waste of time and effort.

Thank you as well for pointing out the California Family Code. I know that Civil codes change frequently, and it wouldn't surprise me to see that code changed or abolished.

"Family Code section 297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses." I'm amazed that such a law exists that segregates same-sex couples, even more than 50 years after African Americans began to see civil progress.

In 1954, Thurgood Marshall brought the case of Brown vs Board of Education to the Supreme Court, who ruled that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. In 1960, the South started to integrate public facilities, including parks and libraries. And the Civil Rights Act of 1964- signed by President Johnson- finally prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin, and began federal desegregation.

In 1967, the US Supreme Court unconstitutionalized the prohibition of interracial marriages.

Almost 50 years ago, when African Americans were fighting for their rights, I'm sure they'd feel offended of unjust wording if the law was written similarily, to discriminate against them:
"Human Code Bigot sect 297.5 (a) Registered *Colored Folks, *Negros, and *Negroids shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon white folks"
(words marked with an asterisk* indicate vocabulary which was used to designate the group of people singled out for discrimination).

Negros could use public restrooms- just as whites could- they just had to be the bathrooms labeled for "colored people". Just as derogatorily sounding as that was, same-sex couples can engage in the benefits of a domestic union, just as a heterosexual couple- they just can't get married. Schools nowadays teach that the separate but equal faux-pas was obliviated years ago, but it's not- the focus on race has been changed to focus on gender. Many whites were content while black slaves worked under the whip, didn't vote, and kept their opinions and cultural practices confined to the barracoons. When blacks finally became overwhelmed at the reality of the iniquitousness of their treatment, through time, they slowly became integrated to the same legal status and treatment as that which whites receive.

Many homosexuals live in their barracoons of second-class societal discretion. Many of them accept the unjustness of the law, which merely reflects the biased fanaticism of those who are brainwashed by whatever interpretation of their Bible they choose to cling to instead of the unbiased fairness of science, simply because one can not negotiate scientific reason with fanatacism/insanity. If the argument for the stance against same-sex marriage is because it has to be between a man and a woman, so that the woman can produce children, do those who argue on behalf of the Bible also think that it's still okay for a childless woman to give her maid-servant (housekeeper, or what have you nowadays) to her husband as a second wife? If I'm infertile, and my wife is barron, a second wife won't do me any good- nor would a third or fourth or a 70th- since I'm still not able to have children. Does that mean that neither me, nor my current wife, have any business being married?

Back then, even if I was able to produce children, I could also have more than one wife; however, most Americans would think that to be blasphemous now. Why would it be blasphemous, oh- I remember... your God changed his mind. If the new-testament or Greek Bible taught to "Love one Another" and "Judge not lest ye be judged", then why do the same bible-thumping Christians judge and devote themselves to the idea that same sex couples are not worthy of marriage? Oh, yeah- jumping back to the Hebrew Bible in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that says that a man shall not lie down with another man as with a woman. Now, if I wasn't satisfying my wife and she was to cheat on me, if I killed her by stoning her, the cops might not understand that I was only trying to fulfill God's unchanging demand; such as voting to keep same-sex couples from marrying is only trying to make sure that God's word be carried out.

For the record, I wouldn't stone someone even if it was legal (as it is in some countries using older forms of Sharia). I think it's morbidly sick to hurt people and to chastise them for a natural act that does not hurt another human physically or financially, especially when the hurt or chastisement is public.

Dr.D said...

flmingnon78, you are so wound up, you are almost funny!

"If I'm infertile, and my wife is barron, ..." No, if your wife is actually a barron, I think all that would be left for you would be to be the baroness.

You have presumed to judge God's word, the Holy Bible, and what it has to say about marriage, homosexuality, etc. Here in the USA you are given the right to do that in this life. God will settle up with you in the next life. It will all work out in eternity.

Perpetua said...

Dear flmignon78,

With regard to your argument using the example of stoning your wife for adultery, we are in agreement that one must follow current American civil law and not seek to exact punishments prescribed in the Bible. On this website I do post articles about the horrors of Shariah Law because I agree with you that it is sick. If you read through my posts carrying the label Shariah Law you will see that I am very concerned about this.

However, I also continue to be concerned about your attitude towards heterosexual procreation. I understand that this may just be your way of maintaining your own self esteem, but it could affect your children in a variety of ways. It is naive to think that children do not pick up the unspoken attitudes of their adult caregivers. For the sake of your children, you should discuss your attitudes with a psychologist so that you can learn to value and appreciate what one would hope will be a natural and important part of your children's lives.

flmignon78 said...

Thanks again for your opinionated insight which did not address my question with a logical explanation. (and I spelled barren wrong- my wife is barren- she can not bare/produce children, neither can I. My negativity is not about sex, it's about the zealous use of non-scientific poetry to discriminate against people who are different. I never really thought about my own relationship with my wife as being anything other than natural, and the desire to care for children just as natural.

And you have it wrong, your assumption that I presume to judge God's word is not as accurate as your presumption that whoever wrote the "Good book" had divine reason and revelation- and based on that judgment- that this magical being's words were recorded and bound into a Bible.

You're right though that here in the USA, we're given the right to do that in this life. And for once, I see something that I agree with- God will settle up with people in the next life. If it will all work out in eternity, then why do people have to get political about it, and prohibit it from happening when it DOES NOT AFFECT THEM.

And, to address the agreement that one must follow current American civil law, and your concern for what you think is my attitude towards heterosexual procreation- I don't have an attitude about the subject- I just specifically mentioned that I don't want to think of my mom or my dad in the act... just thinking of anyone's own parents or siblings specifically doing it is something that most people choose not to think about, they just know it happens. I am aware that children pick up unspoken attitudes about their adult caregivers (hmm, you avoided the word parent- are you also going to vote that my status of being my adopted children's parent get revoked also because you know, if enough of you get together- you could.

I don't need to discuss anything with a psychologist, but perhaps you could; one might be able to help you learn to keep from getting offended when other consenting adults have their own relationships. Perhaps, they would teach you a more constructive way to deal with your cynicism to the idea that the Bible might just be a fantastic work of fiction, although it could be the most true document out there- no one knows, and just as there aren't any current validatory sources to prove that aliens exist, there lacks credible proof that a God exists. As sacrilegious as that may sound, belittling the nature of same-sex relationships is disrespectful to those who believe that what they feel is love (God) doesn't actually exist.

Flatulence is natural- or is it? Foods which produce flatulence can be avoided, although most might not be completely satisfied with such limited options. Some people are offended by it, but most people who engage in flatulence do in the privacy of their own homes, bathrooms, backyards- wherever they feel safe doing it. Perhaps we should all group together and ban that, since I'm sure you could find enough people who are offended by flatulence to get however many signatures needed to make it on the ballot for the next election. There are enough foods out there that can sustain life without producing flatulence, so is natural to live without flatulence. Should my children be taught about the importance of reducing flatulent emissions, and only creating solid waste? Is there a bible verse that says how I should go about teaching my children about this natural part of life?

My examples are exaggerated; however, only to magnify the nonsensical "nature" of bible based opinion and choosing to only use their circumstantial interpretations of it to justify bigotry. This type of "attitude" is not displayed in front of my children (is it still okay to call them my children, or does that offend you- should I just call them my subjects- since our "family" isn't natural- so I don't continue to offend you). I would prefer that a humble gay or straight (and those who have decided to not label themselves) Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, or non-labeled people look after my children and teach them by their peaceful and non-invasive examples rather than by extremist indoctrination of any faith which discriminates against others based on religious interpretation, race, gender, love preference (I say love preference, because I know some homosexual and some heterosexual people committed themselves to celibacy; therefore to them, love is not about sex), or any other characteristics which can be used to segregate humans from each other.

Perpetua said...

Hi flmignon78,

The reason I used caregiver was not to downgrade your roll as parent but to acknowledge the influences of others as well as parents. I was actually thinking of teachers as another example of those whose opinions, even if unspoken, may be communicated to children.

Regarding your question "why do people have to get political about it, and prohibit it from happening when it DOES NOT AFFECT THEM." (Or assumption, I see you did not use a question mark.) Actually what we do does affect other people. Please read this post about some recent research published in Science magazine.

Perpetua said...

I'm not sure that I am understanding your flatulence analogy. Are suggesting that sex is analogous to eating, with the different types of foods we eat analogous to different types of sexual behaviors? Then are you suggesting that the result of flatulence that occurs with eating certain types of foods is analogous to the undesirable side effects of same-sex sexual behavior?