Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and Proposition 22
On May 22, 2008, on the Visalia Times Delta’s Forum Showdown blogsite, commentator Tom Fife posted a discussion-starter that began with the following statement -
“The California Supreme Court recently legalized gay marriage despite California voters’ passage of Proposition 22. If you recall, Prop. 22 specifically defined marriage as between one man and one woman and was passed with a 61% majority vote. Still, our liberal state Supreme Court overturned Prop 22 by a 4-3 ruling.”
That was a prelude to a discussion question that I don’t want to deal with (because it was stated in an absurd manner, similar to “do you still beat your wife?”), but rather I want to comment only the part quoted above.
Conservative commentators are particularly bad about writing about Prop. 22 in such a way as to leave the impression that the majority of Californians voted to pass the proposition, and codify into law that only a marriage between a man and a woman was legal or recognized in California. They then loudly assert that the court has overturned the will of the majority.
Well, that’s not even close to what really happened!
In the year 2000, when Prop. 22 was on the ballot, the U.S. Census put California’s population at about 33.8 million. Now, of course, some people were not counted, and some were “undocumented migrants” (or as the right is so fond of calling them, illegal aliens), and some were children.
The voting results were as follows: 4.61 million yes votes, 2.9 million no votes, for a vote total of 7.51 million. These numbers mean that 22% of the state of California’s population voted on this issue. That’s slightly more than one in five residents of California. Only 13% of the state’s population voted yes. That’s only slightly more than one in ten! So, 13% of the people in California voted to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, but the Right would have you believe that the vast majority of Californians voted for the initiative.
So what can we conclude? First, only 4.61 million people voted for Prop. 22. That’s a lot of people, but it’s far from a majority. Second, conservative commentators are quite willing to make statements that are technically true, but easily misconstrued by the general public, who might not be looking for the bias in these statements. Since they make no effort to explain fully, one can only assume their goal is to mislead people. The misleading statement from Mr. Fife’s post is the “61% majority vote”. That statement is constructed to imply that 61% of Californians voted for the proposition. What it really means is that 61% of those voting voted yes. So, technically, he is correct in his statement, but has stated it in a way meant to elicit a different conclusion than what the facts represent. He hasn’t lied, but he didn’t really tell the truth. Leaving the reader with a false impression, whether deliberate or not, is the writer’s fault.
I posted some comments regarding numbers and majorities, and of course was immediately taken to task for daring to comment. My posts start on page 13 (I came in a bit late, and the rantings build quickly), and the replies quickly deviated from whether my views held any validity, to my being an immoral, irrational promoter of sin. By the way, if any of you have any doubts about the subject, if you are gay you are immoral, regardless. Simply being gay is enough. And, since you are gay, you cannot be considered rational.
Oh, and one more thing. You may have noticed that anytime conservatives start talking about gay marriage, animals are mentioned. For some reason, the Right has some kind of weird fascination with animals. The first response to my post, from Mr. Fife, mentioned marrying pets. They really obsess over gay sex, and animals. And they think we’re the sick ones!
Mike Martinez
stevenpflag
leslielovebird
Laid Evil Bitch-Mess Cartier St. Joan
vcaliboi05
andi
I keep waiting for Joe to start one off with “Tom, you ignorant slut.” It won’t happen, but a girl can dream.
Donald Broyles
22 Jun 08 at 10:22 am
You put up a red herring after claiming a straw man foul?
You can do better.
In a Republic or a Democracy, it’s the majority of votes, not the majority of people, who count.
Those who don’t vote when they are able and legitimate voters cannot cry foul.
Similarly, it is misleading to count them as being anything except and exact extrapolation of those who did vote, anything else is reading into the available information more than can be justly determined.
Further, regarding wording and your claims that sentence construction was obviously loaded: a common fallacy is assuming we and our ideologues are the ones without bias. This is false, we each labor under our own assumptions and when we read something we do not agree with it generally appears the writer has constructed his words in such a way to construe the facts in their favor.
The statement “61% majority vote” is a bare telling of the facts as we have them.
And regarding the fascination with animals you perceive on the “right”: Historically the definition of marriage has been one thing, and it has been understood and assumed to be understood that it was this one thing. To change that one thing which has historical, social, cultural, religious, etc, weight behind it is to free a vast ship from it’s only mooring. At what point can we draw the line then?
As I have heard postulated “marriage should be a relationship between any mutually loving individuals”: that could be very easily construed to encompass more than just 2 people.
And if, as in Spain, we assume that animals and humans are of a similar level of importance, deserving of rights, etc. Why should we exclude them and their lovers from the party?
BTW: how is the smoke in Visalia? I’m from just north-east of Sacramento and my family reports it’s bad enough to quality as “Snow” at times.
matthew
17 Jul 08 at 1:32 pm
I disagree that we can count them as being an “exact extrapolation” of anything. They merely represent people worked up enough to go vote on the issue. They hardly represent “a majority” or even a scientifically valid representation of a statistical majority.
Regarding wording, I have read plenty of articles and commentary where the wording clearly suggests that “a majority of Californian’s” voted for Prop. 22, when that is NOT what happened. I don’t mind the facts, just present them properly. I’ve never claimed to be without bias, but my writings, on the sites I place them, clearly identify my bias. Other writings I’ve seen have not.
You mention my comment about animals, then talk about the historical moorings of the ship of marriage. Is it your contention that allowing same sex marriage will result in allowing people to marry animals? And how is that logical or rational? Aside from every other comment I could make about an animal, the basic legal fact is that animals cannot enter into contracts. They are property or are wildlife. Don’t try to confuse the issue about 2 adults entering into a legal contract with nonsense about animals.
As far as polygamy goes, I really don’t see any logical reason to deny it, either. I doubt it would be a good idea, human beings being how they are, and it would complicate other legal issues such as probate, and divorce, just to name a couple. But we’re dealing with same sex marriage. The only change we are advocating is to permit any one adult to marry any one adult of their choice in a civil legal relationship. That’s hardly a drastic change in the law. Equality is all it is.
Your next comment again goes back to animals. It’s not gays who keep bringing that up, it’s your side. Animals are not legal entities, they don’t pay taxes, they can’t give consent. Quit bringing them up, it just makes you look foolish.
Smoke in the valley is clearing up, but it’s still a hundred degrees around here, south of Fresno.
Jim Reeves
19 Jul 08 at 10:58 pm
Jim,
Excellent response to Teh Stupid, that should hurt.
I’m sick of listening to haters project their fears of bestiality and polygamy onto us sane people. Whose issues are these? and Why do we continue to respond?
Their issues are theirs. They need therapy. I hope their Republican health care covers it.
Thank you.
Donald Broyles
20 Jul 08 at 1:38 am
RE: Repub health care providing for our needed therapy costs:
AAAAhrnold may be for it, but I’m not willing to trust my health care decisions to a government entity. And if they were to pay for it, they would get to make the decisions.
So, unless I’m coming into an unforseen windfall, my craziness will likely go untreated.
Besides, it’s more enjoyable going through life slightly insane. Wouldn’t you agree?
RE: Animals:
I was following a line of reasoning based on current events in the world and basic assumptions regarding the nature of significant relationships to one of several possible conclusions as one of many rational arguments that have been raised against the ideas of redefining marriage.
RE: Voters:
Show me an elections where there has indeed been a significant majority of the populace who have been involved actively at the polls. A great problem, and I believe you’d agree, with American politics is the apathy surrounding the entire process.
I’ve worked with political processes and social issues for 14 years and we can probably agree with how difficult it is to get people “out to vote”.
The point I was making was that there is no way to determine the “will of the people” beyond those who have voted and the results of those votes. Those results are significantly more statistically significant that any “exit polling data” as the sample size is incredibly beyond those limited data seeking projects.
The only just, reasonable, and unfallacious assumptions which may be drawn from any election, barring extreme external circumstances, are those results which are achieved at the polls.
matthew
20 Jul 08 at 6:30 am
Re: everything.
There is a reason the homosexual groups do not mention animals. It is because they are focused on their own agendas, and do not want to make any unwanted association with the term. That is simple. It’s like your argument that the conservatives do not bring up statistical error when citing voter turn out, but it is your major point. So, to whom does this rule of yours apply? Are you the only one exempt from pointing out arguments that the other side feels is unworthy of attention? Or is it that you simply do not want to see the truth of the matter and allow for speculation as to the results of an action?
The reason anybody brings up animals and polygamy and the Man-Boy Love association when discussing same-sex marirage is the argument used by proponents of same-sex marriage. Listen, if your argument is that any two people in love should be allowed to get married, then why not three or more? Why not men and boys? Why not fathers and daughters? Why not First cousins? Why not three people and two goats? The answer is that there must be a line drawn somewhere, right? I mean the only reason Californian same-sex couples want marriage is because it means something, right? The domestic partnership laws extend the same exact rights to same-sex couples and have for five years, so why keep fighting for marriage? It’s not about rights, so what is it? Oh, it’s because marriage has meant something. Well, it has meant one thing since its inception in every culture: a man and a woman.
Also, may I interject here the argument that love has never been a prequalifier for marriage? Ok, go ahead and think that one out, but you will see that there is never a question on the marriage application form asking if the two are in love. And, perhaps if you are smart enough, you will be able to reason out why.
Might I ask why marriage has been confined to that definition for so long? Might I postulate that it is for the creation and protection of families? Listen, I know there are arguments for retaining marriage’s long-held definition simply due to the fact that heterosexuals are the only ones that can procreate, and that somehow this fact means that infertile and elderly people shouldn’t be married. But, I think that if homosexuals are going to define themselves as a class, then that makes the heterosexuals a class as well. Therefore, if we look at the scientific possibility of progeneration between the classes, as a whole and not on an individual basis, then you will find that that the homosexual class cannot progenerate through intercourse. While there may be exceptions in the heterosexual class, a statistical majority will produce more children then any homosexual relationship. This is why marriage has been held for so long as between a man and a woman.
All homosexuals know this, and they are loathe to admit it. But let’s look at the usual way a homosexual couple can have a family: adoption. But where did that child come from? Two gametes which gestated in a uterus. No homosexual couple can recreate that, because they do not have differing gametes. So, the only family a homosexual couple can have children is either through adoption or by buying another gamete from a donor and completing the process in a uterus. While this can be a resort for heterosexual couples, it is not the only method of procreating available. Homosexuals are limited (as a class) in their ability to procreate, so they should be limited to domestic partnerships (which, again, afford the exact same rights).
If you ask me, it is not the conservatives (defined by you, not me) that are unreasonably seeking to retain the definition of marriage. It is the homosexuals (and their supporters) who are unreasonably seeking justification and validation for their relationships through these efforts. Why else go through all of this effort when there is nothing to gain?
As for what’s the harm with gay marriage, I invite you to actually read up on this subject. Anyone can purchase the book “What’s the Harm”, written by Professor Lynn Wardle, a family law expert. It takes on that question and provides an authoritative answer. This is not simple rhetoric, like you see in blogs, but supported research and evidence. The answer will shock you.
Emanon
16 Sep 08 at 11:08 am
Thanks for taking the time to respond. How are things in Utah? Since you appear to be posting from an educational facility, I suggest you re-read my post, and my response to Matthew, as it covers most of what you wrote about. I disagree with pretty much everything you’ve posted. You, as so many others do, try to reduce gay marriage to sex and reproduction, and turn the conservative’s idiotic comments about animals and polygamy around and make them our fault. We’re not going to let them or you get away with that. And that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Try expanding your thinking about human relationships, and the legal institutions we’ve created to support them.
Cute moniker. Noname backwards. How about you grow a set of balls (I’m assuming you are male), and use your real name?
Jim Reeves
16 Sep 08 at 4:18 pm
First of all, I am not from Utah, but am a Californian. And, yes, as you were able to deduce from the higher thought and quality of my writing, I am writing from an educational facility. Perhaps you have seen one. People go to them to learn how to thi… well, I don’t want to ruin the ending for you.
I am not sure how you actually rebutted any argument made. Simply saying that you do not agree is neither an argument nor a strong position. In fact, it is simply weak. And by the way, simply stating that I am weak is not a valid argument either. It is called strawman, and I hope you will refrain from it, as I did not say anything demeaning to you personally or homosexuals as a group for your stance on this issue. I have simply stated arguments in support of my opinion. So, I am still waiting to hear an educated, strong argument from you regarding the purpose of marriage, how this is a civil rights issue, the purpose of gay marriage, and why slippery slope arguments should fail. In fact, I recall many homosexuals using the same style of argument to contradict the progeneration argument (i.e., if we limit marriage to procreating couples, does that mean that infertile or elderly couples can’t get married?) Do you see my point? The issue is that marriage has meant something to society for so long for a very good reason. The homosexual movement wishes to obscure this and focus simply on the generalized notion of marriage (two consenting adults entering into a contractual relationship for the mutual benefit of both). So, who’s reducing what now?
You have neither offered any argument in support of such a generalized notion, nor opposed my comments (other than generally) regarding the reasons for maintaining a traditional definition of marriage. I probably will never check back into this website, as nothing objective will be said, but I hope that you will think next time about the manner in which you argue such an interesting and pressing issue. Don’t sell yourself, your readers, and the movement short by refusing to actually consider all options and arguments from the other side.
One thing that does interest me is how you came to the conclusion that I am in Utah and that I am at an “educational facility.” Is it based on the fact that I am well read, that I referenced a book by Lynn Wardle, that I have done my homework, that I have argued a conservative side (realize, that I never once joined myself to one side or the other. Just because I understand the conservative view point doesn’t mean I am a conservative), what was it? Because as I see it, either my privacy has been comprimised, or you were more interested in discovering my identity than in rebutting my arguments. This may be a false dichotomy, but I just can’t figure it out.
Emanon
18 Sep 08 at 10:24 am
Well, since you probably won’t check back, I’ll keep this short.
Your privacy has not been breached. You posted to a public forum, so I did a check on the IP address you logged in from. It came back to a company in Utah that provides internet access to educational facilities. From past encounters with people who used the exact same arguments and comments as you have, I wanted to see if you were someone from out of state who likes to focus on debate methodology rather than just discuss the issues.
Your comments about my possibly figuring out you were at an institution of higher learning by the quality of your post read as quite vain. Education does not automatically impart wisdom, nor modesty.
Some basic positions about the issue:
Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time does not mean it has to or should continue that way.
I’m not talking about Holy Matrimony, or any religious ritual, so what the Bible or any other “Holy” book says is irrelevant.
Marriage has changed dramatically over the centuries, so the idea of “traditional marriage” is a weak support for opponents of gay marriage.
It is a civil rights issue, since it deals directly with civil legal rights in a secular society.
I do consider arguments from the other side, I simply disagree with most of them. I may not be able to articulate my reasons as well as some, and I certainly don’t know much about debate society rules and procedures, but that in no way means my comments are therefore irrelevant.
The other side is the one that tries to take the conversation from the basic right of adults to enter into a civil legal contract with another adult of their choosing, and turn it to polygamy, and marrying cousins or animals.
As far as those issues go, I agree that there might not be any logical way to support gay marriage and not polygamy. But that’s not the issue here. As for cousins and the like, there is already a legal relationship between those individuals. There is no legal relationship between me and a person I would choose as a spouse that protects us like marriage. Civil Unions are inferior and unacceptable. And of course, as I’ve said before, animals are not legal entities, but property or wildlife, and cannot give consent or enter into contracts. The other side should quit bringing them up, as it just makes them look ignorant.
We are simply trying to protect our relationships, which are as valid as any heterosexual relationship. The world won’t end just because a few homosexuals get married.
Jim Reeves
18 Sep 08 at 4:56 pm
Great discussion here, Jim! Rest assured that your arguments are articulate and cogent. The person from Utah who claimed he/she is from California simply does not agree with you because his bias is on reproduction as the reason for marriage. Forget that the human population has burgeoned beyond the capacity of our planet to support us all, and that homosexuality may be increasing because nature is adapting to circumstances, as nature does. Forget that being a mom or a dad is not sacred to the predominantly heterosexual people who dumped their kids into the foster care system. Forget that people like me don’t want kids, but I can marry any person with a penis in any state.
What the man/woman from Utah/California may not understand is the broader implications of all the gamete games. Virgin births (parthenogenesis), asexual reproduction (agamogenesis), and other ways of being are not uncommon throughout nature. But as far as we know, all gay people came from heterosexual mingling, just as all non-gays did.
So why penalize people for being gay? What have we done wrong to deserve the institutionalized punishment that a marriage ban represents? Is it only because we chose someone with similar sexual equipment to spend our lives with that people like Emanon with no name and uncertain occupation and location think we are subhuman and therefore deserve fewer rights than they do under the law? A person is free to choose their religion, but not the law they are ruled by. Who would choose to be gay, given the scarlet letter inclinations of such people, and the difficulties they have caused for us throughout our lives?
I find many anti-gays are liars, sometimes only in small ways like the Utah person, sometimes in large ways like the Mormon and Catholic leadership. Let me tell you something that happened this week.
I came across an interactive map at LAtimes.com that shows how much money has been spent on Prop 8 in CA, and who made the donations. My name is there, though we donated to several organizations as a couple, and our actual donations over the past several months amount to five times what was reported (total $500).
I looked at my County and found that one of the top donors supporting the ban is a local accountant I had interviewed several months ago to handle our personal and business accounts. The gay person who recommended her to me assured me the accountant was gay-friendly, but I asked the accountant myself if she is supportive of gay people and our right to marry, and if she is knowledgeable about the additional financial burdens imposed on gay people as a result of the ban (still in place when I interviewed her).
“Oh yes,” she said firmly, telling me she had at least ten gay couples she did taxes for and knew “all the ins and outs of the law.” That was actually what made me decide against her months ago, because the laws are in such flux that no one really knows. I want someone who is at least up-to-date but thought her response demonstrated a lack of wisdom or humility or something. And now I knew what something was lacking — honesty.
So I called her up and reminded her that we had talked, which she said she remembered and did I want to make that appointment? I said first I needed to ask her if the LA Times had it right, had she had given a large donation ($2350) to the anti-gay side? She told me it wasn’t anti-gay, but yes, she believes marriage is between one man, one woman, one time. I reminded her that I’d asked her specifically if she supports marriage equality because we are gay and we want a gay-friendly accountant to handle the intimate details of our personal and financial lives.
She said she considered her donation her personal business and that if I didn’t like it I could go elsewhere. I told her, of course we will go elsewhere, now that we know. But she had misled me and it was only by happenstance that I had discovered the truth. She said she treats all her gay clients equally. I asked if she had disclosed to any of them, as she did not disclose to me when I specifically asked, that she supports the anti-gay prop 8? She said it was none of my business and hung up on me. I had been completely civil of course. It was being pinned down in a lie that she didn’t like.
What I would like to understand, is why the anti-gay people and their church leaders are so willing to lie? Their commercials are full of lies, like the one about children having to learn about gay sex in kindergarten, or that parents don’t have the right to prevent their kids from going on field trips to attend gay wedding, or that churches will have marry gays even though they can’t stand our kind of people. Just lies, like that dishonest accountant.
Just like anyone else, not all gays want to marry or to marry in a church. Voting NO on 8 is about gays in California having the same rights as everyone else to choose our own partners and determine our own lives to the best of our abilities.
Equal rights. Not special, not different, certainly not lesser. Just equal. That is the basic, singular fact. Voting NO on 8 simply assures that gay people are treated equally under the law.
Terre
25 Oct 08 at 4:02 pm