http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/stop_the_lies.html

A. Zarkov:
I don’t have any data– do you? It seems to me at this point we are both speculating. I take that position because so many super intelligent people have been gay such as Alan Turing and Leonardo. This suggests that gays might be more intelligent than the average non-gay. Again this is speculation– we need data properly adjusted for variables like age and geography.

freshlegacy: Probably correct. And people have the right not to have their un–published un–PC opinions ratted out on their un–willing behalf.

When someone decides to participate in a PUBLIC discussion regarding the rights of other citizens, it seems quite obvious that their internal communications that are DIRECTLY RELATED to these activities should be subject to review by the public. I don’t believe that the right to “free speech” includes the oxymoronic “right to free speech in secrecy.” Speech necessarily is a public function. The defendants only claim could possibly be a right to privacy, and in my opinion, that is right they willingly relinquished in this matter when they decided to affect public policy and law.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by VolokhConspirac: Ninth Circuit Panel Rejects Attempt to Discover Internal Prop. 8 Campaign Documents: The opinion, released yest.. http://bit.ly/84SuMs...

Cornellian: Translation: I dread the prospect of people finding out what I really think about gay people.

Or maybe I don’t want organized thugs calling up my boss to demand I be fired for my private political views. Or calling me. Or my kids.

But since when does the motive matter? We don’t get to set aside a judge’s ruling on grounds that he was prejudiced against us, even if he followed procedure and articulated a rational basis for his ruling. We don’t get to set aside a jury verdict because of the secret thoughts of individual jurors displayed prejudice against the defendant or a witness. We don’t get to set aside election results because we can show that the voters had a complete misunderstanding of the facts or had a prejudice against a candidate. We don’t get to set aside a statute because a swing vote legislator acted due to bribery, or hatred for his mother.

An election, like a judicial hearing and other official proceedings, is a process in which the only thing that counts is what happens in public.

The only part of any election that counts is what takes place in the public square. The motives, the intelligence, or the goodness of the people who work for one side or the other is not relevant. The fact that many of the opponents of Prop 8 live a lifestyle that many people consider to be immoral, or contrary to the bible, is not relevant. The fact that some of the people who worked in the pro-Prop 8 campaign had secret sexual immoralities in their lives is also irrelevant. Only the actual words of the referendum, and the actual votes of voters, count for anything.

In light of the lack of relevance, it is clear that the only rational purpose of examining internal communications of the Prop 8 supporters is to get dirt to use against them in subsequent battles. Are the opponents of Prop 8 making a full disclosure of all of THEIR internal communications? I would think the plaintiffs in this case might make a better case for forced disclosure if they set the example of disclosure, including disclosure of all of the internal communications among the litigants and their legal counsel. If disclosure is important, why don’t they set the example? and then let’s have disclosure of all internal memo and discussions in the courts, all the conversations among the California Supreme Court justices before they voted to overturn the previous referendum and institutionalize gay marriage in the face of the voters, and creating the need to have an amendment. If they did it because of religious prejudice against Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews who support traditional marriage, should that invalidate their original decision?

When someone claims illegal discrimination by an institution, there is a basis for seeking discovery into evidence of communications that would reveal a prejudicial motive for tenure decisions. Similarly, if someone claims that a news company defamed them, they are required by the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling of the Supreme Court to demonstrate evidence of actual malice in the publication, in reckless disregard of the truth, and internal communications are relevant to that precise issue. But in an election, the motive for the proponents or opponents of a candidate or a referendum are no more relevant to the validity of the election than is an examination of the motive of the voters on either side. What we have in this case is a group of plaintiffs who simply cannot stand the finality of democracy. It is the same motive that led Al Gore to bollix up the 2000 presidential election by enedlessly seeking more votes, primarily in counties where he had already recieved 60% majorities and was sure of getting a majority of any new votes he scrounged up.

If I were on the court, I would have simply announced that the jurisdiction of the courts simply does not extend so far into the electoral process, and that the principles of separation of powers do not allow the courts to interfere with the process that elects legislators and governors and enacts statutes and constitutional amendments. Like the 4 of 7 California justices who overturned the previous referendum, the plaintiffs in this case are simply enemies of democracy, believers that the majority of the people have no right to make judgments about the law. It is arrogance and elitism, plain and simple.

Actually, so am I. Unfortunately, there isn’t that much research on the topic, and much of it is skewed. Afterall, gay magazines have an incentive to prove that their readers have higher income levels than the general population. It’s this sort of distorted information that Scalia was probably referring to in his dissents when he says that gays are politically affluent.

I do recall, though, a serious study done several years ago that sought to find the income levels of all gay people, regardless of whether they are partnered. As I recall, there are far more gays living below the poverty level than previously thought. My personal experience here in Washington is that there are a lot of rich gays ,and a lot of gays barely making it. Openly gay men are few at the mega-earnings places like Wall Street, or major corporations.

Can’t find that study, though.

I have no idea where you get this idea that there are hordes of 3rd or 4th generation Mexican immigrants who refuse to learn English or adopt to American culture and are trying to covert California into Northern Mexico…

Bilingual ballots. If the immigrants want to learn English – and must learn English to become naturalized citizens – and the Hispanics born and raised here speak English, then from where is the demand for bilingual ballots coming?

Thanks. Don’t know how I missed the earlier links.

I need to read the download later; the only reason I’m up and about at this absurd hour is because I really should be doing something else ;-) But the Urban Institute graph raises at least one big red flag for me at first glance. The bars in the graph represent the incomes of partnered gay men vs. partnered straight men. They do not, so far as I can see, indicate household income; nor do they show whether there are any dependents.

In other words, you can reconcile that chart very neatly with the DINK stereotype, if you remember that (1) married/partnered women generally make less than their male partners, and often work only part-time or not at all outside the home, especially if they are (2) raising children. Remember that the chart, since it represents “partnered gay men,” includes both partners somewhere; remember also that the chart includes straight women nowhere, and makes no account of children.

Count me unimpressed. (But, as I said, I need to look at the other link with the .pdf, and I will later today.)

Most gay men and lesbians are not actually partnered to the point of living together in the US. I don’t know how many partnered gays or lesbians have children, but the percentage has certainly been rising in the past decade.

SF is an exception. Not all gays live there, and not all gays even live in the coastal cities.

“Maybe the impression that gays are wealthier, on average, than straights has to do with the fact that it’s easier to come out if you live and work among people with high levels of education. Still, I’d like to see some evidence that gay men living with their partners and making good money are, as you say, a tiny minority of all gay men. Have you a cite or two? From CA if possible, since that’s the state we’re talking about?”

My earlier post links to two.

Of those districts, AD 17, 50, 52, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 69, and 79 are represented by Democrats – and AD 31 is represented by a Democrat-turned-independent)

The Hispanic-majority Assembly Districts in CA (Census 2000 numbers) are 28, 30, 31, 39, 45, 46, 48, 50, 52, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 69, 79, and 80.

The Hispanic-plurality Assembly Districts in CA (Census 2000 numbers) are 17, 23, 49, 51, and 55.

Of those districts, AD 45 (home base of new CA Assembly speaker John Perez, who is gay, as well as former Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, who is gay) is the only one where Prop 8 did not pass, and the only other substantially Hispanic district where it did less well than its statewide average was AD 23 (San Jose), where it passed with 50.9%.

Out of the 22 substantially Hispanic districts in the State, that’s passage in 21, with 12 of those 22 being among the 29 top-performing districts for Prop. 8

Nick

The image of gay men is that they are dual income, no kids, and therefore have a lot of discretionary income. The reality, though, is that that is a very small percentage, and that gays in general earn less than straights do.

You mean that it’s a “very small percentage” that are DINK? (The very large majority are either not living with a partner, or else have kids?) Or that most gay couples make less than the median straight couple does? That doesn’t match my impression of the people I know. But then I live in the Bay Area; most of the gay men I know are in couples living together, and comparatively well off even relative to the straight couples I know. (Most of which do have kids, which most of the gay couples don’t.)

Maybe the impression that gays are wealthier, on average, than straights has to do with the fact that it’s easier to come out if you live and work among people with high levels of education. Still, I’d like to see some evidence that gay men living with their partners and making good money are, as you say, a tiny minority of all gay men. Have you a cite or two? From CA if possible, since that’s the state we’re talking about?

A. Zarkov,

Has it ever occurred to you that “Mexico Norte” might be originally a play on “Baja California”? No evidence here; just a guess. But it would be a good line, in the turnabout-is-fair-play spirit.

Guy,

Yes, because the appropriate measure of how American a place is is how white the people are, and how few immigrants there are, not what Constitution applies or how much the principle of democracy/representative government limited by a Constitution is adhered to.

Ummm . . . I dislike looking at racial classifications, which seem nowadays to be of practical use mostly to college admissions departments and neo-Nazis, but my understanding is that citizens of Mexico or of the Central American nations are “white,” unless they be primarily of Black, Asian, or Amerindian descent. “Latino” and “Chicano” are not “races,” and the racial classifiers (that — please God — dying breed) call these people, in general, “white.”

Guy: Many of the “people in question” who aren’t American citizens are no doubt illegal immigrants, but an immigrant is an immigrant, regardless of how they entered the country.

So the members of an invading army would be immigrants?

Twirip:
The people in question are neither Americans nor “immigrants”.

Then what are they, tourists?

Many of the “people in question” who aren’t American citizens are no doubt illegal immigrants, but an immigrant is an immigrant, regardless of how they entered the country.

If you don’t believe me, let the plaintiffs release all their confidental memos.

Yes, because the appropriate measure of how American a place is is how white the people are, and how few immigrants there are

The people in question are neither Americans nor “immigrants”.

If an organization trying to dismantle affirmative action sued to obtain internal NAACP documents, it creates the real possibility that such disclosures would be used in the future to intimidate specific individuals who are leading a political organization or effort. Those seeking to ignore the biological basis for marriage have made no secret of their intent to personally attack and intimidate anyone who stands up for biological marriage. They have targeted businesses of Prop 8 supporters. This legal action was clearly an attempt to gain more specific information to engage in additional acts of intimidation.

jab: I have no idea where you get this idea that there are hordes of 3rd or 4th generation Mexican immigrants who refuse to learn English or adopt to American culture and are trying to covert California into Northern Mexico

According to the American Community Survey California is now over 36.6% Hispanic. You can be sure that the official government statistics underestimate the actual percentage because they way underestimate the number of illegal aliens. The actual number exceeds 40%. In the future the percentage can only increase from immigration, both legal and illegal, and high fertility. The yearly in migration is of the order of 500,000. According to California Counts, the Total Fertility Rate for foreign born Latinas is 3.7, which is actually much higher than Mexican women. According to the CIA Factbook the TFR for Mexico= 2.34. This is interesting. It means Mexican women that migrate to the US either choose to increase their family size, or for some reason high fertility women choose to migrate. You can write a simple first order difference equation with a constant term to reflect migration and predict the future Hispanic population of California. Now it’s true that US born Latinas do have a much smaller TFR, near 2.1, which does support the assimilation theory, but other facts contradict that. You can also see from the graphs in California Counts that the overall Hispanic TFR oscillates around an equilibrium value of 3. By 2020 California will be more than half Hispanic. Now you think such a dramatic change in California demographics won’t change the nature of California life, but I’m afraid that theory breaks on the weight of facts. If you want I can go through a point by point comparison that destroys the assimilation hypothesis. We can discuss the political changes the demographic shift will bring along with the economic problems. California is well on it’s way to Mexifornia. You might welcome that but many people don’t and they are leaving California. Who will pay the bills in the future?

From your frequent SF/Berkeley bashing posts, I take it you live or have lived in the Bay Area.
So do I, and I have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes, there are a lot of Mexican immigrants… lots of Philipino immigrants… lots of Chinese immigrants.
But yes, mostly Mexican. Immigrants of all stripes tend to tightly hold on to to their previous language and culture… the next generation, not so much… and by the third or fourth generation, they are very much assimilated. And that includes Mexicans… I have no idea where you get this idea that there are hordes of 3rd or 4th generation Mexican immigrants who refuse to learn English or adopt to American culture and are trying to covert California into Northern Mexico… It’s downright offensive. Mexican families move to America for the same reasons previous waves of immigrants came from Europe… for better opportunities for their families… I used to tutor/mentor young Mexican immigrant men… and they were ashamed of their poor English and desperately wanted to learn English.

One of the links also includes a pdf file that details a more complete study.

I don’t think a class’ position on the social ladder is determined solely by economic status. Would you argue that Jews were higher on the social ladder in the past because of higher income in spite of the rampant anti-Semitism that used to be prevalent in this country?

This article says that more than 40% of runaways in America are gay, according to the National Runaway Switchboard. I do agree that whatever the reality, gays are not perceived as being poor, I was just responding to your expression of disbelief at this statistic.

EDIT: after looking back at your post I see that you weren’t talking about this fact specifically, I seem to have misread it. I think we can both agree that determining average income levels for gays as opposed to straights is virtually impossible, given the problems with invisibility that all studies of gays face.

Guy: Yes, because the appropriate measure of how American a place is is how white the people are, not what Constitution applies or how much the principle of democracy/representative government limited by a Constitution is adhered to.

We have to distinguish between nation and state– the two are not necessarily synonymous. For example the Sudetenland was politically a part of the Czechoslovak Republic (1918-1938), yet it was in most ways a German nation. A nation is generally defined as a group of people who share a history, language, culture, religion, race, and other attributes. If current trends continue California will eventually become an extension of Mexico into the US, and more resemble the former than the latter in terms of nationhood.

Guy: Regarding the socio-economic status of gays, gays might be perceived as wealthy “elites”, but so are Jews, so what does that have to with Arthur’s original point?

Arthur described gays as “one precarious rung lower on the day’s social ladder …” I’m not sure that’s true. With regard to Jews the perception is correct– they are the most prosperous ethnic group in America.

Guy: “According to research by the Children’s Society, an amazing 25 to 35 percent of the 100,000 British children who run away from home or are chucked out every year are gay, lesbian or transgendered”

I’m not sure that applies to the US, but let’s say it does. Gays would then have a bimodal or perhaps multimodal distribution in their socio-economic status. But you still can’t describe them as “one precarious rung lower on the day’s social ladder …”

A. Zarkov:
California’s conversion from an American state to a de facto Mexican province has not yet reached completion. In some places such as Maywood the 2000 Census put the population at 97% Hispanic and 55% foreign. Many chains such as Target have bilingual signs. The common term Mexicans who plan to migrate use for California is “El Norte,” not “California.” In other words, California is really the northern part of Mexico. To be sure, Central Americans often use the term “El Norte” as a generic reference to Mexico and California as in the 1983 film with the same name.As for Mexican food, there’s a restaurant near me that’s so authentic you can’t drink the water.

Yes, because the appropriate measure of how American a place is is how white the people are, and how few immigrants there are, not what Constitution applies or how much the principle of democracy/representative government limited by a Constitution is adhered to.

Regarding the socio-economic status of gays, gays might be perceived as wealthy “elites”, but so are Jews, so what does that have to with Arthur’s original point?

Zarkov, my super-brief Googling brought up this: “According to research by the Children’s Society, an amazing 25 to 35 percent of the 100,000 British children who run away from home or are chucked out every year are gay, lesbian or transgendered”. Not perfectly on point, but this isn’t exactly the first time I’ve heard about the runaway over-representation problem, and I’m a little surprised that you seem to find it counterintuitive.

Randy: The image of gay men is that they are dual income, no kids, and therefore have a lot of discretionary income. The reality, though, is that that is a very small percentage, and that gays in general earn less than straights do. In certain sectors, they do considerably less well — it is estimated that almost half of all runaway teenagers living on the streets of LA are gay kids kicked out of their homes.

The lower socioeconomic parts of the gay community are much less visible, though, and less active as centers of organization or public faces of the gay-rights movement. In California, The Castro in SF is seen, probably by both gays and straights, as ground-zero for gay culture. And the median income there is… not low.

Randy: It doesn’t. The image of gay men is that they are dual income, no kids, and therefore have a lot of discretionary income. The reality, though, is that that is a very small percentage, and that gays in general earn less than straights do.

I don’t have any data– do you? It seems to me at this point we are both speculating. I take that position because so many super intelligent people have been gay such as Alan Turing and Leonardo. This suggests that gays might be more intelligent than the average non-gay. Again this is speculation– we need data properly adjusted for variables like age and geography.

It doesn’t. The image of gay men is that they are dual income, no kids, and therefore have a lot of discretionary income. The reality, though, is that that is a very small percentage, and that gays in general earn less than straights do. In certain sectors, they do considerably less well — it is estimated that almost half of all runaway teenagers living on the streets of LA are gay kids kicked out of their homes.

” No bilingual ballots– and no demands for favorable treatment.” Yup, but I don’t see anyone disagreeing with you.

But I don’t think that Arthur was talking about the economic status of gays, but rather the pariah status gays have had for most of this century and before. It has been changing in the recent decades, but gays still have a long way to go before they are as accepted in most parts of the country.

ArthurKirkland: Heaping scorn on those one precarious rung lower on the day’s social ladder appears to be a strong human instinct; it would explain most current anti-gay activity.

“One precarious rung lower … ” Does that describe gays in California? I think socio-economic data points in exactly the opposite direction.

BTW do you know where the word “kike” comes from and who first used it? The German Jews in New York City.

The analogy between illegal Mexican migrants and Eastern and Italian immigrants breaks under the weight of facts. For one thing those immigrants (besides being mostly legal) were as or even more educated than the average American. The Italians excelled at crafts such as run plaster work (go look at Lincoln Center for run plaster) and stone carving. All over NYC you will find wonderfully built “Brownstones” with intricate stone work. Go try and find someone today who does any kind of plaster work. Even so about 60% of the Italian immigrants went back to Italy.

Hungarians, Poles, Jews, Russians, Italians, etc did not expect the US to adopt to them, they adopted to it. No bilingual education. No bilingual ballots– and no demands for favorable treatment.

ArthurKirkland: Heaping scorn on those one precarious rung lower on the day’s social ladder appears to be a strong human instinct; it would explain most current anti-gay activity.

I tend to see anti-gay activity, at least in California, as sort of the opposite, a populist anti-elitism. Gay-rights is associated with a sort of bourgeois social liberalism, and gays are seen as largely upper-class condo dwellers, which makes them instinctively disliked by both populist conservatives (central valley) and populist liberals (south-central LA).

That much of the disparaging talk involved older Italians didn’t strike me as strange until years later, when I learned that a state statute had classified them as “non-white” during their formative years, and that the reason Italians dominated certain businesses (waste hauling, beer distributing) was that they weren’t welcome in other industries.

Heaping scorn on those one precarious rung lower on the day’s social ladder appears to be a strong human instinct; it would explain most current anti-gay activity.

bystander: I should point out, however, that it is not nearly as bad as non-Californians seem to think it is.

California’s conversion from an American state to a de facto Mexican province has not yet reached completion. In some places such as Maywood the 2000 Census put the population at 97% Hispanic and 55% foreign. Many chains such as Target have bilingual signs.

The common term Mexicans who plan to migrate use for California is “El Norte,” not “California.” In other words, California is really the northern part of Mexico. To be sure, Central Americans often use the term “El Norte” as a generic reference to Mexico and California as in the 1983 film with the same name.

As for Mexican food, there’s a restaurant near me that’s so authentic you can’t drink the water.