Prop 8 Fight Reveals an Ally and an Alibi
A wave of protests and litigation over California's vote to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry have shifted public attention forward from the circumstances surrounding Prop 8's narrow passage on Nov. 4.
But the gay community and its friends would do well to dwell a moment on why the measure reached the ballot and who took their side in the most expensive political fight in the history of the gay-rights movement. Both questions hold lessons for the future.
Passage of the measure cut off marriage rights secured just 24 weeks earlier, realized in the civil ceremonies of more than 18,000 couples. It also set off a round of recriminations familiar to losing campaigns. In this case, the finger-pointing among Prop 8 foes took on racial overtones, amid surveys showing a majority of whites opposed the marriage ban while majorities of African Americans and Latinos backed it.
Lost in the parsing of black and brown balloting was the figure on Asian Americans, who tipped against Prop 8. Hyperbole on blogs and mainstream news about racial divides and fissures in California's progressive coalition obscures the fact that an important people of color community rejected Yes-on-8's appeals to intolerance.
This result was no accident. It reflected sustained organizing, independent fund-raising, and thoughtful communication by Asian American supporters of equal marriage that began three years ago.
Asian Americans, at 6 percent of all voters, admittedly account for half the size of the African American electorate and a quarter of the Latino voter base in the state. Thus smaller, funded efforts at suasion within the community can reach a greater share of the whole, especially when they begin early. Asian American opponents of Prop 8 did not capture their suburban and rural constituents.
But they heavily won over the large population of urban stakeholders. In the city of Los Angeles, where pluralities of all people of color voted to eliminate equal marriage rights, Asian Americans rejected the measure by a more than 3-to-2 margin.
Local coalitions such as API Equality leveraged the powerful public voices of leaders such as state Board of Equalization chair Judy Chu, Assemblymember Fiona Ma, and labor activist Courtni Sunjoo Pugh.
History provided a useful basis of argument. Latino opponents of Prop 8 seldom compared its revocation of rights from gay people with the anti-immigrant Prop 187 of 1994, an epic act of scapegoating via ballot measure that continues to resonate in California. But Asian American foes of Prop 8 weren't shy in forging compelling parallels with the toll of ignorance, racial discrimination, and even Japanese-Americans' internment during WWII in order to sway their families, friends, and neighbors. Replicating and investing in such communication and coalition are a sure bet for gay-rights advocates hoping to win future showdowns at the polls.
But avoiding altogether any further ballot measures on marriage is an even surer method for securing equality under law. Up-or-down votes on a minority's civil rights furnish extreme religious groups a high-profile forum to distort and demean the lives of gay people. This is why it's regrettable that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger set the stage for Prop 8 by single-handedly blocking same-sex marriage from becoming law through the traditional process.
Twice, in both 2005 and 2007, Schwarzenegger vetoed state bills recognizing gay couples' freedom to marry after state lawmakers duly passed the legislation. The year after the governor's second veto, it was a four-member majority of the state supreme court that showed the political courage to recognize and establish the freedom. Even that advance owes nothing to the governor: his lone appointee to the court was in the bloc that rejected gay couples' claims.
After the ruling, and the filing of petitions by religious right-wing groups aimed at overturning it, Schwarzenegger adopted a new cover story for his failure of leadership on the issue. He came out personally against Prop 8. The maneuver deflected attention but provided cold comfort to equality advocates, forced to raise more than $30 million in attempting to defeat the measure. Having stood twice before on the brink of winning marriage equality through their elected representatives, they instead faced a barrage of ads condemning it as the ill-gotten output of elitist judges. Thanks a lot, Arnold.
Upon Prop 8's approval, the governor had another alibi to cover his culpability on the issue. He said the court should strike it down. Yet more than any other person, he remains responsible for putting marriage equality in jeopardy in California and leaving its future in the court's hands. Having changed the state constitution, Prop 8 is now beyond both his reach and the legislature's. For the time being, at least, it has foreclosed the very process that the governor stymied twice before.
Schwarzenegger will have to answer to gay-rights supporters for his role in Prop 8 if he challenges Senator Barbara Boxer for her seat in 2010. Should advocates for equal marriage not prevail in court, it's possible a vote to repeal the marriage ban could appear on the same ballot. By prioritizing and building long-term alliances within communities of color, advocates for equality could make history on two fronts in the same election. They could put marriage equality back on the table in California and take Arnold's aspirations off it.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The governor could have signed marriage legislation in '05 or '07. And the state's high court might then have ruled to uphold the new law and to strike down the prior initiative limiting marriage in the same ruling. The actual court ruling in May '08 made very clear that simply because a limitation on marriage came into force through the initiative process doesn't mean it can't be struck down as unconstitutional. Such a finding by the court also renders moot any insistence that the law limiting marriage be changed solely via the initiative process. The legislation recognizing marriage equality would then have stood unimpeded.
The governor has had a shifting and contradictory stance on the proper route for changing state law on marriage. He long called on the court to be the decider, but then filed a brief saying the legislature or the people, via initiative, should do it. The actual ruling in May '08 noted that at least half of the jurisdictions in the world that have recognized gay couples' freedom to marry did so by one-vote majorities of their highest courts. It's a shame that the governor's actions helped ensure that California joined the ranks of such jurisdictions. In so doing, he helped the religious right uncork its argument about judicial, versus legislative, decision-making. This claim spilled over into the electoral arena where, to put it mildly, it did not serve the political case for preserving marriage equality and stopping its elimination.
"Schwarzenegger will have to answer to gay-rights supporters for his role in Prop 8 if he challenges Senator Barbara Boxer for her seat in 2010."
I fully agree.
Much appreciation to the Asian folks who voted No on Prop 8. Your support will not be forgotten.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is chief Marketer more than he's ever been a true leader as Governor of California. He's an actor. He's a salesman. He's a business man. He's a weightlifter. He's a macho man. When he wants to belittle an opponent he will label the person as a "girly man." He considers that a laughable insult, hurtful on two levels: its sexist and its homophobic. Arnold just doesn't get it though. Its a friendly insult to him. If he should decide to market himself to the public and run for Barbara Boxer's seat in the US Senate he is likely to go down hard in defeat and look like a "girly man" loser to his fan base--not a great marketing move for his Hollywood career. LOL!
it is an insult
I really think the No on 8 campaign needs to get a firm understanding of the phrase, "don't hate the player, hate the game".
It had just as much of a chance of winning, but it lost anyway. Blame whoever you want, but nobody is feeling personally upset that your side lost...other than those on your side.
People vote how they want. It's those on the No on 8 side who gave people an ultimatum about either being for gay marriage, or being against it and being labeled a bigoted homophobe for it. For the minority to give the obvious majority an ultimatum on their terms is pretty big talk, and it backfired. Again.
What imaginary ad campaign were you listening to? The No-on-8 side was inundated by a powerful, ready-made organization that whipped up irrational fears in a gullible and prejudiced electorate. Nobody was given an "ultimatum."
Then why were so many people afraid of admitting they were going to vote Yes on 8? Why did were so many people on the No on 8 side saying, "if you disagree with gay marriage, you're a bigot"? It was an ultimatum.
The fact that you couldn't go a single day without hearing someone call it Prop H8 or hearing someone say "bigoted" "homophobic" and a litany of other words. That side GAVE PEOPLE NO CHOICE in the matter.
I was really embarrased by passage of Prop 8. Thankfully my county was the strongest supporter of voting against the ban. But I also spoke to some bozos who thought that voting "yes" meant they were voting FOR gay marriage, so who knows how many people just made a bone head mistake by not reading.
In the old days people were against gays using the excuse "I don't want to see them kissing in the street." Well, i think we found out that was no threat to heteros. Now, it's the idea of marriage that is causing fear. But it will be legal in the future. Things take time and patience brings about a lot of reward.
Schwartznegger's actions were a bit weird to say the least. I don't know how Maria does it. I could never be married to a partner so diametrically opposed to my own beliefs (even if it's just a public act).
Good article, but you missed one point. After the adoption by the electorate of Proposition 22, an initiative STATUTE that said only mariage between one man and one woman would be valid and recognized in California, the California legislature lacked the ability to create same-sex marriage by legislation until the California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 in May.
In California, initiative statutes which do NOT expressly permit the legislature to amend them CANNOT be amended by the legislature. That was precisely what the bill Mark Leno and others pushed the governor to sign was trying to do. They claimed an alternative legislature history for the initiative, no supported by the ballot pamphlet (the legislative history) and enactment of the bill would only have led to a similar showdown before the Supreme Court.
I strongly support same-sex marriage and am angered that so many people in California through equal protection overboard to enshrine their religious disapproval of gays in the Constitution. I also wish Arnold had come out and campaigned more forcefully against the Proposition in the run-up to the election and I fault him for that. But I can't say he was wrong in not signing legislative bills which violated the California Constitution's prohibition on amending an intiative statute.
Your initiative process in California sure is whacky. I though Massachusetts set the bar too low for tyranny of the majority, but California is much worse. I am sorry for your loss. Please come to Massachusetts, or now our neighboring state of Connecticut, if you still need a same sex marriage.
I personally do not think gays need to do one more damn thing.
What we need to do is STOP doing things, like being tax compliant to a government and its citizenry when they refuse to include our families and children. Since WHEN does anyone allow taxation without equality? The Exalted Heterosexuals deserve to PAY TAXES since they still insist on selfishly-hoarding their special, privileged rights. We owe America ZERO until equal.
So after they lose the majority vote, it's in their best interest to give people something to really be pissed about?
Uh....we're kind of used to the HETS-IN-POWER throwing tantrums. See DADT, DOMA, etc. for examples.
But Heterosexual America is a complete fool if it believes every gay person will gleefully pay taxes into a system that denies that person's family basic civil rights.....such as civil marriage. Of course....no one will know the extent of the cash economy - that is what's neat. Invisible tax protest; individual justice.
Who cares if there is a MASS REVOLT (would be nice), but it's more about a refusal to tolerate taxation without EQUALITY.
Good points about Schwarzenegger. To the No on 8 campaign in general; we gays need to stop apologizing; for Newsom, for teaching gay tolerance in schools, for daring to take on religious fundamentalism, for being gay. We need to put a human face and a social pricetag on bigotry and reveal the shame in voting for oppression and intolerance. For instance, gays are third most likely to be victims of hate crimes (after Blacks and Jews), and gays are first most likely of any group to be murdered in a hate crime. (see FBI site: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm). Gay teens are 3 times more likely than straight kids to commit suicide, to be kicked out of their homes, and to become child street prostitutes to survive. Hate crimes and neglect thrive in an environment of bigotry and marginalization and Prop 8 shows that active, aggressive, invasive intolerance is OK; that hate against this minority is OK. This is the legacy of those who support(ed) Prop 8. This is their respect for American liberties. This is their Christian love. It's shameful and it costs human lives.
Gays are second when you add bias crimes against gay men, lesbians and gays in general. Much higher than the rate of bias crime against Jewish people. This is true also in California.
Boxer will kick his *ss.
what makes you think gay rights supporters would support Arnold over Boxer anyways?
There's enough blame to go around here, but the question still remains: why are matters like this even put on the ballot in the first place? Since when does the majority get to decide how many, and what kind of, rights minorities should get? If civil rights for African Americans had been subject to approval by popular vote, there would still be cities in this country with separate drinking fountains.
We are talking about California here. Having spent a year there I learned their reputation for dizziness wasn't entirely undeserved. They seem to be clueless as to why functional government has things like independent courts, legislatures and constitutions that can't be amended on the passions of the day. Let the typically ignorant and misinformed voter decide.
I'm a Californian John and I couldn't agree more with you. The ballot initiative system in Cali is completely out of whack.
Well, that's interesting but the movement has a very long way to go before marriage is accepted. The Gay community represents only a very small portion of the population and this means that they must work hard to outreach. They have not done enough, which is apparent from the vote results. Instead of looking at their own miserable failure at marketing, they are wasting time on blaming everyone else. Well yes, your enemies are always to blame, but you will always have them and it needs to be understood that a new way to go is needed. I would like to see the Gay community get a little more mature about their agenda. The Gay community needed this offset so they could regroup with a better and smarter plan.
"Mature" in what way? Isn't pursuing the social and legal recognition of stable healthy relationships about as mature as one could get?
The general point that our movement should be focused, dedicated, and smart is true enough. But it really amuses me when I hear the suggestion that citizens of California who stood up and voted to take away--t a k e a w a y--a right that other citizens had enjoyed for months, and which is already enjoyed by citizens of not only other countries, such as Spain, but in our very own commonwealth of Massachusetts, did so because I didn't go into neighborhoods and personally knock on every door.
This was a mean-spirited hateful campaign financed heavily by out-of-state mischief makers who took advantage of California's flawed ballot initiative system. Recognition of rights is not reliant on the ballot. If that were true, then a lot of rights enjoyed today would still be theories. This is coming, it's coming fast, and it's coming through the courts.
Perhaps a different tack should be taken to tip the balance. Stress how that gay marriages stimulate the economy (weddings cost money) and that it could actually reduce the need to raise your taxes. But the way the economy is going, California IS going to have to raise taxes in some way eventually. Maybe they fall for it, maybe not. But you're gonna lose if the argument is religious.
The argument never was religious. Are Catholic churches forced to marry atheists, protestants, or Jews? No. Same-sex marriage would affect nobody's religion. That was a lie spread by by Prop. 8 supporters and believed by the simple minded.
You're exactly right.
And the angry No on 8 supporters who have vandalized and called for the repeal of several church's tax-exempt status proved them right.
Great article. Thank you. I plan on working actively against Gov. Schwarzeneger obtaining any office. I am happy to say that I never have voted for him. However, now I will put in time and effort campaigning for a leader who will represent the Gay and Straight communities equally. Its on and I am going to bring it!
If you want to blame somebody for blowing the election for you, blame Gavin Newsom.
That ridiculous "Whether you like it or not" speech that played in the Yes on 8 commercials endlessly.
Officiating at the same-sex marriage with the 1st graders at San Francisco City Hall.
Just unbelievable.
Newsom handed your enemies all they needed to beat you.
A lot of us do know that Newsom is a shameless grandstander and opportunist. What a gift that remark of his was to our opponents. Nonetheless, Schwarzenegger's performance in all of this represents a new gold standard in lack of political integrity. Who knew you could become the world's most famous body builder without having a spine?
Newsom's courageous, heartfelt decision to allow gay marriages in SF in 2004 (one that i admit surpised the heck out of me, not a big Newsom fan) gave the nation those wonderful images and news stories of committed couples finally being allowed to wed. Yes, this provoked a backlash--as has every other instance in which civil rights activists have "overreached"--but probably did more to "normalize" gay marriage--and significantly decrease opposition--among the general public. The cynical use of the speech and the teacher's wedding by the "Yes" campaign makes Newsom no more to blame than the "scary" images from countless gay pride parades which highlighted the "otherness" of certain segments of the gay community.
Gavin Newsom's only "sin" in all this was his triumphalist "like it or not" comment. Does one unthinking phrase really obliterate his long-standing support for SSM which has put his career in jeopardy?
I don't doubt that the Yes-on-8 folks' use of the phrase hurt us, but do you really think they wouldn't have found some other tactic? Maybe more "their after your kids!" commercials. They would have stooped as low as necessary to win. It's their way.
No wonder you lost the election.
You're wrong.
If Schwarzenegger signed a gay marriage bill, there would definitely have been Prop 8.
It would have been EASIER to pass.
Why?
Because gay marriage would have become law through the party line vote of Democratic politicians and the signature of a movie star governor.
What you got was a lot better than that. The Republican majority California Supreme Court declaring gay marriage to be a civil right.
Then Jerry Brown reframed the language of the ballot proposition for you.
This should have been a slam dunk win for No on 8.
Not quite. I know it is hard for California Republicans to admit this, but they are a TINY minority in the state now, unable to elect any Republican statewide who isn't pro-choice.
A party line Democratic vote with a moderate Republican governor would have been a better platform for this campaign.
The Governor did nothing, NOTHING, to help the No on 8 campaign. But he did find time to campaign for John McCain in Ohio.
Now the Governor wants the courts to overturn the proposition? Where was he before? Oh yes, campaigning for John McCain's destined-to-lose bid for the White House.
I fully admit the No on 8 campaign was pathetic all the way around, and undersupported by the gay community who just didn't want to believe it would pass or that we would have to fight to defeat it, and undersupported by progressive organizations who threw ALL their energy in the Obama campaign so that he could win California by an almost absurd 24-points at the cost of the other progressive issues on the ballot.
But that doesn't let the Governor off the hook in 2010.
Do you really live in California? Maybe you don't follow California politics much.
Here are your big mistakes.
1. Nope. Schwarzenegger appeared in a No on 8 TV ad that helped close the gap.
>>>>The Governor did nothing, NOTHING, to help the No on 8 campaign.
2. Nope. Schwarzenegger did only one event with McCain in the entire general election.
>>>>Now the Governor wants the courts to overturn the proposition? Where was he before? Oh yes, campaigning for John McCain's destined-to-lose bid for the White House.
What he WAS REALLY doing was passing his redistricting reform initiative -- backed by all the reform groups like Common Cause -- that will make it harder for wingnuts to win legislative primaries. That's what he spent most of his time on.
You'd know that if you followed California politics.
>>>>Now the Governor wants the courts to overturn the proposition? Where was he before? Oh yes, campaigning for John McCain's destined-to-lose bid for the White House.
3. Nope. A bunch of Democratic politicians passing a bill to overturn anti-gay marriage initiative passed just a few years back, with that bill signed by a big Hollywood star, would have been much weaker than what you had.
>>>>A party line Democratic vote with a moderate Republican governor would have been a better platform for this campaign.
The Republican majority state Supreme Court established the right to gay marriage.
Attorney General Brown then redid the ballot language, giving your campaign a PERFECT FRAME.
Calling on the courts to throw out Proposition 8 may not be much, but it's more than I've noticed Obama doing.
2000 the vote was 62/38, 2008 it was 52/48.......see a trend there? I do. Better than 2 points a year in the margin.
The issue was already before the courts. Prop 8 would have had to campaign against "the black-robed activists" and the (Dem) Legislature and the (GOP) Governor.
They would have had a much tougher time.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
