I think you would agree that the vast majority of the 70% of black voters who choose to discriminate against gays are also very religious.

You cannot reach out to religious people. They don't use facts in their thought process but instead rely on "faith". You cannot debate someone who uses "faith" or "god" as an excuse.

I think it is not only unfair but incredibly foolish to expect that the "progressive and liberal groups" can somehow talk religious people out of their prejudices. The very same prejudices that have been instilled by their churches every Sunday.

"Paul Hogarth agrees. “In California there was a serious problem with outreach to communities of color. Whatever happens in Maine, we will still have that problem in California. And a lot of liberal, progressive groups are not good at reaching these communities,” he says".

It is not the fault of liberal and progressive groups that 70% of black voters in CA supported Prop. 8.

You don't blame the victim for the crime.

Which is why it is absolutely absurd to wait until 2012 so those same black Obama voters will again vote for discrimination against gays.

In an article in The Hill, which explains how some Democrats don't want to take up "controversial issues, we learn that the number two Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin (D-IL), is now saying they may not take up the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell next year.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/66219-democratic-angst-over-10

The Maine gay-marriage initiative went down to defeat Tuesday. But the real tragedy is that it should never have been put to a vote in the first place.

Isn’t this exactly the kind of thing that James Madison invented the life-tenured federal judiciary to decide?

Recently, a bunch of legal scholars and influential commentators representing themselves as liberals, have suggested that it’s not. The federal courts should just bow out, they say, of deciding things like gay marriage (and abortion rights).(Little-known fact: the Bow Out movement started with a suggestion that the Supreme Court had made a mistake when it integrated the schools. Imagine what the law would look like if the Brown court had waited until a majority of states were ready to pass the Civil Rights Acts.) Painful as it is to them, as sincere supporters of abortion rights/gay marriage/your issue here, these wise ones think the federal courts should follow the election returns. Only when a majority of states have legalized something should the federal courts find that it was a fundamental constitutional right all along.

That gay marriage has to run this gauntlet is not an accident. Before the Bow Out movement, most big social change claims made their way to the federal courts without this huge windup of state-by-state legislative efforts, which then alerted the opposition to the social change that was coming. More importantly, a thoroughly organized, heavily funded conservative movement is now securely ensconced on the political stage and has seen its tyrannical opportunity in the majoritarian vehicle of the referendum. The combination has pulled the American political system in a radical new direction the Founders actively opposed.

The Supreme Court has yet to rule that gay marriage is either a matter of fundamental right or simple equality. They will have a chance to do that, as the various lawsuits generated by this constitutionally repulsive procedure make their way up in the next few years. But one thing the experience with same sex marriage should make clear. Whether we like the outcome or not, the last thing the court should do, in deciding that question, is follow the election returns.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-04/get-gay-marriage-off-the-ballot-1/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsC1

We reported late yesterday that the DNC's Organizing for America (formerly Obama for America) was emailing Mainers a generic "get out the vote" message that said nothing about the various ballot measures at play in the state, including the attempt to repeal the right of gay couples to marry - the biggest issue in the state at the moment, and the biggest gay rights issue in the country being voted on today (not to diminish the very important election in Washington state). We asked at the time why the DNC and OFA weren't telling Mainers what they'd be voting on, and even better, urging them to vote "no" on the anti-gay referendum.

Since that time, another Mainer came forward and said that she was sent an email from OFA asking her to make phone calls to New Jersey voters to support Jon Corzine's re-election bid in that state. Nothing in the email she received asked her to do anything in her own state, such as vote "no" on 1.

In response to our stories, the DNC denied that they were contacting Mainers and asking them to help out in other states.

Well, a second Mainer has now stepped forward and produced evidence that he too was contacted by the DNC's OFA, and that he too was asked to weigh in on the New Jersey race rather than help defeat the anti-gay referendum in his own state.

http://gay.americablog.com/2009/11/2nd-mainer-now-says-dncs-ofa-asked-him.html

"You can't put a civil rights issue on the ballot and let the people decide. You have to have elected officials to who have courage to make the right decision. If you left it up to the people, we'd have slavery, depending on how you worded it." - Former Minnesota governor and pro wrestler Jesse Ventura, responding to Maine's vote on CNN last night.

In an article in The Hill, which explains how some Democrats don't want to take up "controversial issues, we learn that the number two Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin (D-IL), is now saying they may not take up the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell next year.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/66219-democratic-angst-over-10