This is a correlation/causation fallacy.
But from a cultural perspective, these things do not line up nicely. Do you really believe 7/10 black people are incorrigible bigots? Or is it more likely that they are dis-proportionately orthodox in their view on "word X"? Interestingly, some work Nate Silver did in 2008/2009 on opinions in this area is enlightening. Somthing like 70-80 percent of CA citizens supported the "human rights" element of the argument. But there were something like 10+/-15 percent of people who supported the "other side" because of the parsing of words. Its unlikely, as a result, anyone can conclude much about the personal views and tolerance from votes on these types of laws.
Governor Swartzeneger actually vetoed CA legislation because he felt it was in conflict with the Constitution of CA. {etc}. So this stuff can go on and on, from both sides.
In September 2005, the California legislature passed a bill, A.B. 849, eliminating the gender requirements for marriage now found in Family Code section 300. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. In his veto message,[14] Schwarzenegger argued that passing a law that would implicitly repeal Section 308.5 required the assent of the electorate (and separately made note of pending court challenges).
There is also a nate silver piece illustrating that Obama's campaign did increase the size of the Prop 8 support in CA. Although while the black support was critical to securing the majority, its not clear Obama's marginal increase in black voter turn-out was 100% of the pivotal votes. But surely this still makes him more culpable on the issue than Eich.
NOt withsatnding that any of this matters, anyways. The laws exist as they do today so this is all an absurd discussion. And better reason to use discretion and tolerance in looking back on these matters rather than preaching intolerance and black and white moral clarity and etc.
________________
[1] And by this I means explicitly supporting "exclusionary" definitions of marriage.
The very specific language he used was:
> I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.
So:
* he was not personally in favour of gay marriage at the time[0]
* but he was most definitely and unambiguously against constitutionally forbidding it (and enshrining his personal beliefs in constitution), and did call then discriminatory
* as opposed to Eich who was most definitely and unambiguously for constitutionally forbidding it
Not only that, but even at the time Obama was
> “open to the possibility” that his views may be “misguided“
> So he was not in any way neutral on this issue. It is impossible to argue.
That's pretty much the only correct thing in your comment.
[0] and has since reversed his position