California Marriage Equality -- How We Will Win

Heartbroken at the ruling according second class citizenship to our LGBT families, relieved that our married friends won't endure forced divorces, it is a sad day for civil rights in California. Yet I believe we will win marriage equality through pride, respect, transparency, and optimism.

Today's California Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8 all but invited marriage equality proponents back to the ballot box. The action upholding both Prop 8 and the18,000 same sex marriages solemnized during a brief window of legality means that individual rights can be taken away by a ballot initiative. It also means that they can be enshrined through the same process. So back to the polls we go.

This ruling comes at a time (7 days after a special election) when California voters suffer from ballot fatigue. We just resoundingly rejected a series of budget measures in the 9th statewide election since the October 2003 gubernatorial recall: (October 2003, primary and general in 2004, special election fall 2005, primary and general 2006, primary and general 2008, special election May 2009). Add in the municipal elections, and we're looking at over a dozen forced marches to the ballot box including two (Props 22 and 8) on same sex marriage.

At a certain point, ballot fatigue becomes voter insurrection. So I can already hear some of you grumbling "why another ballot initiative?" and "how can marriage equality succeed after failing twice in the past?" Fair questions.

WHY? Civil rights is a moral imperative. The courts and the Governor have kicked marriage equality to the voters - so it is up to us to act. Whether you believe, as I do, that these rights are already enshrined in the California Constitution, or as Prop 8 proponents do, that they are subject to the vote of the people, the public has voted twice on this issue and has more of an appetite to do so than on other ballot initiative topics, such as fees and taxes, that we hire legislators to tackle.

HOW? Offer something positive to vote FOR. Rather than drumming up a NO vote - and all the negativity that brings - jump out front with a YES vote. Learn from the past to shape the future. When you get emails and petitions from groups offering a new proposal, and a return trip to the ballot box insist upon these principles: pride, respect, transparency, and optimism.

1. PRIDE. Embrace diversity; don't shy away from it. When presenting the case for marriage equality, showcase the 18,000 families who married between May and November 2008, the thousands more who would like the opportunity to do so, and their loved ones.

2. RESPECT. A statewide campaign needs a statewide dialogue. Unlike the prior 'No" campaigns, this effort must respectfully engage people from all across the political spectrum. and all different faith backgrounds in the freedom to marry discussion. Talking to like-minded people is not enough. Listening to people who disagree and winning them over turns failure into success.
.
3. TRANSPARENCY. A top-down small cabal no matter how talented is no match for a bottom-up movement. Let a few take the lead as conveners - and let the people weigh in, offer feedback, and share information in real time. That means meeting offline, not just tweeting our thumbs. It means being transparent with the strategy and the money so people can see their commitment at work.

4. OPTIMISM. Since Prop 8 won, many people have seen the changing dynamics not only in California, but in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont. Millions have borne witness to the joy, stability, and responsibility that comes with marriage equality. Rather than tell people they got it wrong before, highlight people who voted Prop 8 and then evolved on the issue.

That is my view of the how and why we Californians overcome voter fatigue and learn from past campaign defeats. The when is up to us - but I am confident that it will only be a matter of time and effort before marriage equality is the lasting law of the land.

Comments

[regellner]

I really cannot see why our country does not see this a civil rights issue; Prop 8 violates civil rights and therefore should be abolished. I wrote an article at the link below that pertains to this topic:

http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Charlotte-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m5d27-Prop-8-court-decision-denies-civil-rights


Raymond Gellner - Charlotte Liberal Examiner at Examiner.com
http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Charlotte-Liberal-Examiner

[kylennblack]

Good luck you guys! Just tell me where to donate money I'll be there with an open purse.

[swoosie1]

We continue to have hope that we will find our way on this. However, the time has come to use the power of the $$$ to boycott any politician, business, state, etc. that does not feel that this is an issue of criticality. The thing with the politicians is that they never feel constrained by the gay rights movement. There is a subtle way that the questions for them are handled and we never get in their faces about this. Take Obama for example. It is AN OUTRAGE that he is silent over this issue. Disgusting. Take all the others who have kept their mouths shut for the sake of expediency. We give them a pass because we assume they are LIBERAL. Well a liberal that does nothing but keep their mouths shut does us no better good than a conservative bigot. Quite frankly, I am tired of making excuses for our do-nothing California politicians who are supposed to help us and work with us. They are sitting in their offices and doing nothing. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE???? The fact is there is no outrage. The politicians do not care about the gay constituency or gay rights. Simple as that. For me, I am going to boycott everything that I see as anti-gay, including all the California politicians that I see being silent on this issue. They will NEVER receive my vote because they cannot be trusted with it.

[cminca]

Absolutely agree--not another dime till we have some full-throated LEADERSHIP on LGBT issues.

Every time you get solicited for funds--send the envelope back with an explaination as to why you are not contributing.

Still no action from our leaders?

When they ask for funds tell them to call Rick Warren.

[1differentdrummer]

Is marriage not a church rite while civil union is a government function? What is government doing telling churches who they may or may not unite in matrimony or whatever?

[cminca]

Think about the phrase "by the power invested in me by the State of....". The church is performing a civic function.

No one is saying that a church doesn't have the right to include or exclude anyone from a religious ceremony.

[M1]

How does one know your being discriminated against? It is when you are spending your life, time and effort fighting for the simple rights others have handed to them. You spend your time in the courts, the streets marching, jail or in meetings while those who have rights continue to focus on building their estates and vacationing.

I guess what saddens me the most about the Court's ruling today is that it abdicated its responsibility to provide Domestic Tranquility. This War now rages on, the divide is deepened, families split, and there is no end in sight because our State lacks the moral leadership to take a stand. Arnold could have put this to rest with one signature on two different occasions and this court should have never allowed this prop 8 on the ballot. Now, a minority is left in the wind seeking its rights from a majority that has historically discriminated against it. My heart is heavy today.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

Nice hopeful column

But NOT TODAY

First I want revenge on the Mormons knights of Columbus, and Saddlebackers who attacked OUR FAMILIES.

We'll put equality on our.....to do list,

but VENGENCE comes first.

[dem 01]

I am sick of PELOSIS - any kind and any type

[1differentdrummer]

Were you sick of Bushes in the same way?

[BlackWidowPilot]

Back in 1967 there was a married couple named Loving. Their marriage was *illegal* in sixteen (16) states, and the majority of Americans polled *opposed* their marriage many on the grounds of a heartfelt belief that the *Bible* condemned such unions.

Fed up with being harassed by police for no other crime than being a marriage comprised of a white man and a black woman, Richard Loving took his case to the Supreme Court.

That was 1967, and the Supreme Court ruled that those laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional. The justices did so in direct defiance of popular opinion, and solely on the basis of the cold, hard facts of the case, and the content of our Constitution, and simple human decency.

Prior to Loving vs. Virginia, the woman I am now married to, the wonderful, elegant, amazing, talented *soulmate* that God has blessed me with, well, if it were 1967 our marriage would be *illegal* in sixteen states and the *majority* of Americans would think our marriage *wrong,* and many would no doubt assert that "the Bible says so!"

Being gay is an *orientation,* not a "lifestyle choice," and any first semester Psychology or Human Biology student knows this to be a scientific fact.

To continue to discriminate against the fundamental human right of consenting adults to marry while denying the actual facts of the matter is the height of intellectual dishonesty in the service of a morally bankrupt authoritarian political agenda.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[cminca]

Thanks for sharing that.

[Thevail]

Hey Christine.­. here's the only truly fair and lasting solution I've been able to come up with.

Abolish marriage as a state/gov't institution. Leave "marriage" as a religious or festive occassion that has nothing to do with equal rights under the law.

Make it so that the state ONLY has the right to do civil unions (not marriages), and that those civil unions must be offered to any two consenting adults who choose to enter into such a contractual obligation. By making it a strictly government function it would be a much easier fight in court to say that the state was discriminating based on creed or sexual preference

Then it's just exactly the same for heterosexual couples and GLBT couples. To be married in the current sense they'd have to get both.. a civil union and a "church wedding".


There are many clergymen who have no problem "marrying" gay couples, and I don't think it's any more unfair for some clergy to refuse to marry two gay people than it is for them to refuse (and they often do) to marry two people because they are not of the same faith.

This also solves the polygamy question, because you could only enter into a civil union with one person, but if your church was OK with polygamy then you could "marry" as many people as you like.

I

[PlaceboStudman]

I disagree. We need to follow the course of history and give the word marriage to the state/govt and tell the church to butt out of our legal contracts. If churches want to perform their precious little theatrics, fine, let'em, but call those SPIRITUAL UNIONS, and give the government the power over the word Marriage.

I am sick and tired, fed up and angry beyond words that these stupid people believe that the entire universe begins and ends with their precious little hebrew-zom­bie-ghost. I'm sick and tired and fed up with them claiming that they have sole property rights to a word, without a single shred of evidence of patent or trademark papers.

Marriage existed long before the so called life of their precious little zombie-ghost. and it still exists as a legal contract having to do with property and inheritance rites, and it's ONLY the Christians with their "you don't need chemo, just pray and your cancer will go away!" attitude that has distorted and perverted this world

[T2inDC]

PlaceboStudman is right.The legal term Marriage belongs ALREADY to the state/gov. not the church. If two people went to thier church and were 'now pronounced man and wife' it would mean nothing in the eyes of the law and they would only be "spiritually wed'. They must obtain a MARRIAGE license from the state to make it legal. How hard it that to compehend??

[Thevail]

I'm Ok with it either way. Just seperate the civil union contract from the religious ceremony.. you know seperate the church from the state on this issue.

I don't care who calls it what. That's not what makes any relationship serious, or lasting, or loving regardless of who is in it. The piece of paper doesn't make it real, it just grants certain specific legal rights.

So this whole ruckus is about custody of the WORD marriage..­. good grief.

[Winning09]

Yes, abolish marriage!

What a fabulous, popular idea!

It won't be hard at all to get most voters to buy that...

As if.

[Steamboater]

And give MONEY for the campaign to do away with Prop H-8. We need it.

[Christine Pelosi - Huffpost Blogger]

A plan with a path to win marriage equality comes first. Money comes second. We cannot afford to lose a third time.

[cminca]

I may contribute to a campaign or group, but I won't be contributing to a politician until I hear some leadership.

And no--your mother's 5/26/09 press statement isn't leadership.

[freeme6]

only one posted

[freeme6]

Is this any relation to nancy pelosi

[Isis N]

Christine, great suggestions. I really hope that what you have foretold will come true!

[SD Indy]

"but I am confident that it will only be a matter of time and effort before marriage equality is the lasting law of the land."

-------

Christine - I applaud your optimism. The problem that I have is that lets suppose that we are successful in 2010, there is absolutely nothing that prevents our opposition from putting the issue back on the ballot in 2012 and overturning the 2010 vote, and then we have to go back in 2014 and overturn it again.

This is the dangerous precedent that the CA Supreme Court set today! By allowing mob rule, as they did today, there is NOTHING to stop ANY other minority from facing the same level of persecution and blatant institutional discrimination that the LGBT community faces today. At NO time in our history did we use our Constitutions to strip rights from people, it has ALWAYS been used to expand them (with one exception - prohibition, which was quickly reversed.)

[Christine Pelosi - Huffpost Blogger]

SD Indy, you are correct. Yes on one level it is infuriating to have to fight this fight at all .. and disheartening to think of all the millions of dollars that could be spent in common cause - fighting poverty, promoting public health, etc. But all the more reason to showcase LGBT families as well as converts on marriage equality, so that we widen the circle of support each time.

[Winning09]

Uh, what does your mom think of this idea?

We won't have the same big turnout in 2010 without Obama on the ballot.

And your idea of showcasing LGBT sounds like the campaign that lost last year, minus Newsom's boneheaded moves. He won't be the candidate for governor but you know he won't go away.

[Hal Donahue - Huffpost Blogger]

Christine is right. Now what should the language be? Let's go forward. The reactionaries are fading fast; we need to keep the momentum

[Thevail]

Absolute equality for absolutely everyone! No exceptions!

[llisa]

Call it "The Save Marriage Act" or something like that. It will be saving marriage as a right for all, but it will confuse the heck out of those who think it means save only man-woman marriage.

[PlaceboStudman]

(as I said above before reading this) If we are to follow the course of human history, and really believe in full equality of all humans, not just Americans, then the language has to give the word "marriage" to the state/government, and let the churches use the term Spiritual Union. Because, nearly everywhere outside of The Christian world, there is no such thing as "civll unions", and most civilizations have not had a religious component to their legal contracts.

So, in summary again, if you want to get married by the state, with all the legal and financial benefits, call THAT marriage, and call the church theatrical ceremony Spiritual Union