Why the Prop 8 Protests Matter
I didn't join the street protests against Proposition 8 right after it passed. My gut reaction was: "where were all these people when we had the chance to defeat it?" But "No on 8" ran a terrible campaign that would not have effectively used more volunteers, and it's possible that many had tried to get involved. Now the state Supreme Court will decide what to do about Prop 8, and City Attorney Dennis Herrera has put on a strong case to have it overruled. But that doesn't mean the Court will do the right thing; even the best legal arguments can lose. A mass movement of peaceful protest is crucial at building the political momentum to attain marriage equality - which can convince the Court it's okay to overturn the "will of the voters." Social movements rely too much on lawyers and politicians to make progress - without effectively using the masses of people who want to help. Now people are angry, and this weekend we saw mass protests across the country. It's now time for everyday people to get involved.
As Barbara Ehrenreich once argued, Roe v. Wade didn't just happen because a majority of Supreme Court justices decided women have the right to choose. It was after a mass movement worked hard for many years to make that politically possible. While we like to believe the best legal arguments always win in Court, judges are - at the end of the day - politically connected lawyers who wear robes. As much as Dennis Herrera's lawsuit is well written and legally sound, it's still a leap of faith for the state Supreme Court to override a popular majority in the last election. And citizen action - if done effectively - can go a long way to give them the political courage to do the right thing.
Public outrage at Prop 8's passage has not just been a few angry protests in the Castro, or righteous indignation at churches. People who never thought of themselves as "activists" have suddenly been spurred into action - and they're using the same tools the Obama campaign used to win the presidency. For example, my friend Trent started a Facebook group called "Californians Ready to Repeal Prop 8." He expected a few hundred people to join, but in less than a week the group had over 200,000 members. Efforts are afoot to collect signatures for a statewide proposition - in 2010, or sooner if we have a special election.
This viral activism is in stark contrast to the "No on 8" campaign - where people relied on political leaders who failed us in waging a statewide effort. My first involvement with "No on 8" was in July, right after the San Francisco Pride parade. The campaign had just collected thousands of postcards at Pride, and our task was to call these people and recruit them to volunteer. But a lot of people come to SF Pride from across the state, and all the volunteer activities were in San Francisco. It was a lot to ask someone who lives in Monterey or Santa Rosa to come table at a Farmer's Market in San Francisco for a day.
I asked the campaign why they couldn't just get people to do "No on 8" activities in their own communities. They didn't have to wait until the campaign could afford to open offices in other parts of the state. Online groups like MoveOn have perfected the model of using the Internet to connect like-minded activists to each other - and get them to meet in "offline" locations to push their political cause. My suggestion was ignored. Now we see spontaneous efforts - organized online via social networks, without any "leaders" - to lay the groundwork for a future Proposition campaign to restore marriage equality.
November 15th was a massive "Day of Protest" against Prop 8, and we predictably had a huge rally in San Francisco. But we also had nearly 2000 people in Sacramento, a whopping 12,000 in Los Angeles, 5000 in San Diego, 2500 in Santa Rosa, and over 1000 in Downtown Ventura. And it wasn't just a statewide action - 12,000 took to the streets in Seattle, 5000 in Boston, thousands in Chicago, 1000 in Albuquerque and even a rally in Peoria. Prop 8 hit a nerve felt past California's boundaries: during a presidential election that gave millions hope, one of our bluest states voted to take away peoples' fundamental rights. People are upset, and want to get involved.
Now Prop 8's fate is in the hands of our state Supreme Court - who must decide if the greater good (equal protection under law) is worth telling 52% of California voters they can't eliminate marriage rights. Peaceful protests can give judge the resolve to do the right thing. Unlike George W. Bush - who said he didn't "listen to focus groups" after 2 million people across the world marched against the Iraq War on a single day - I believe that our justices will take these protests seriously. Which is why they matter so much.
Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.
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
@DMHopper
}}}}
Pseudo-terrorism. That would be what? Not really terrorism?
{{{{
Several churches received white powder mailed to them in large envelopes. The powder was harmless, which is why I had some issues with referring to it as actual terrorism.
Pseudo-terrorism was the best compromise I could come up with...
Michale...
What the devil is "pseudo" terrorism? If you mean vandalism, say so. Gay rights activists aren't blowing things up; it's the straight cowards who gang up and beat glbt folks.
Sending white powder to churches that supported Prop 8 is perverse and pathetic..
It surely doesn't endear the public to the gay community's plight..
Michale...
Do we really have to have the ad featuring the two guys making out?
That's disgusting.
There are plenty of ads featuring straight people making out and then some. I think it's all disgusting.
so is the tonsil-hockey that goes on in every romantic comedy. get over it.
But PROGRAMMING featuring heterosexuals making out (and more -- this week's episodes of Chuck and Two and a Half Men come to mind, and it's only Monday) -- THAT'S just fine. Is THAT what you are saying? Or to put it another way, why aren't depictions of straight "making out" disgusting?
I'll wait......
25,000 in San Diego, 25,000 25,000 in San Diego, 25,000 25,000 in San Diego, 25,000
As you can see ..I HATE when numbers are not shown correctly. It makes it sound like there were only a few people out there. All counts are listed as less than what they really are. I spoke with the lieutenant in charge during the protest and he said that there were estimates of 20,000-25,000 people, and we should go with the lower to be safe.... So he wanted 20,000.. but on the news I hear 10,000, and in your article only 5,000.... WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR NUMBERS.
As one of the organizers, and the person with whom our lead police captain first discussed the official numbers, I was a bit surprised by the 5,000 number myself. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but by gosh... we had the largest event in the NATION down here, and it's kind of a drag having that completely misrepresented.
you're right.....
This vote was well planned and the folks who did the advertising did a great job of scaring folks into voting in favor of it to "save their children from learning to be gay" more so then they voted to hurt gay communities. Many I know regretted voting after they did and they actually learned it was not going to change anything at all in the school programs and some of the folks I know have many gay friends, but really thought it was about school programs and laws forcing churches to marry gay people.
Nice job LYING to California
Counting on the California Supreme Court to overule the emotionally driven Prop8 is asking a lot from Justices. These political judges might have to face the real possibility of a Recall, which is precisely what happened to Chief Justice Rose Bird and three of her colleagues during the 1980s.
Expecting them to do the heavy lifting while the No on 8 forces were so totally unfocused, undisciplined and counting on the kindness of strangers is unrealistic and a sad commentary on the gay community. Lines to get into the local hot watering holes in West Hollywood on weekends instead of doing grunt work for a cause isn't fun but it's got to be done.
Many lessons could be learned from the Mormons. They rang doorbells, and no, not everyone gets SilverLake, WeHo or Palm Springs. They became precinct captains. They called people who hadn't voted yet and offered rides to the polls. They gave money. Lots of it. They were relentless in their goal and THEY ACHIEVED IT.
Eventually there will probably be enough generational replacement to repeal Prop8. But this passivity in the gay community and expecting everyone else to take all the risks, while others sit and bitch about it in local watering holes isn't going to cut it.
Holly,
The supreme court already laid the groundwork to fight future challenges. They placed gays into a "Suspect Class" or protected minority class that cannot be discriminated against under the Equal Protection Act in our constitution.
They did not have to recognize us to that extent. It forces them to have to eliminate Prop 8.
To the screeners: why not just ban me from the site and make it official? Are you that afraid of a conservative voice on your blog? Why won't liberals ever allow that? Are your viewpoints that childish and indefensible that they cannot withstand any questioning? Check out townhall.c
And you were saying?
We could only hope that they are censoring conservatives as you conservatives have continually tried to censor the rest of us. And on this topic, censor our love, dictate our family, and hypocritically harass us for wanting what you keep saying people should have; loving committed relationships.
Even in Bakersfield California, pop 400,00, buckle on the belt of the red counties, which went 75% for PropH8, we had a rally of over 100 people this saturday .... before the election, we had TV coverage over stolen No on H8 signs, we had street corner rallies , and virtually no support from the self-appointed "official campaigns" If it can happen here we'll be there statewide before long
What a bunch of protesters say outside of a courtroom should have no bearing on what goes on inside.
The case should be decided on it's merits and only it's merits.
I agree that the No On 8 campaign failed to make good use of potential volunteers. I signed up online to volunteer, and told them I could work all day every day for the last week leading up to election day. I FINALLY got a voice mail in response, saying I could sign up for a volunteer TRAINING scheduled for Nov. 1. When I tried to call them back, their voice mailbox was full. So I decided to fly to Florida to help the Obama campaign instead, and their organizers had me out there knocking on doors on day one.
If, as Mr. Hogarth describes, the campaign made no effort to create volunteer opportunities for people outside of the city of San Francisco, it's small wonder the initiative passed. They should have had people knocking on doors and phone banking in every single part of the state, something the Yes On 8 apparently did quite effectively. At any rate, I am optimistic that the painful shock of losing this battle will continue to energize constructive action, including demonstrations like we had on Saturday, and a much more effective volunteer effort going forward.
I am not gay, but I am outraged too. With these unconstituitonal bills and rights being revoked by this establishment try to cram thier religion down our throats, this is such a load of crap.
The LDS church contributed a significant amount of money and effort to endorse PROP 8 in California via its network of church, media, and community outlets enshrining discrimination under the law for thousands of Californians and their families.
"In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying).
Help by signing this petition:
http://www
They were attempting to defend their definition of marriage; that qualifies as a religious activity. Sorry, but religious people are just about done with having to keep their beliefs private and only uttered on Sundays. We have been getting trounced in the cultural war and it is going to stop. We have all the same free speech rights as secular progressives and will not hesitate to use them. We're here, we will defend our values, get used to it.
The right in question was a false right created by a one-judge majority overturning a ballot propostion that held enormous public support. I would guess that a lot of people were voting against judicial tyranny evident in that decision. The people voted and made their will known, twice now, overcoming a media bias and some "wordsmithing" of the amendment (designed to confuse). Noone is trying to cram anything down anyone's throats. These religious people have every right to disagree with you and to do so loudly and publicly; this is one of the basic rights that makes this country great. This is the right that allowed pride parades and war protests to happen. I suppose only liberal-approved speech is free speech though.
The tired old canard of judicial activism and tyrants on the bench isn't playing to any one anymore except the social conservatives who eventually will lose on this issue.
Prop22 which did pass with 61% of the vote was a legislative initiative which is automatically subject to judicial review, just as any law passed by our Assembly. Just because the California electorate wants something, that doesn't make it legal or even possible.
The hot potato of same sex marriage has been kicking around since the 1970s. Arnold twice vetoed bills by the Assembly that would have legalized it. He said it was up to the voters OR the California Supreme Court. Since so few voter initiatives pass, their legality isn't even brought up, much less challenged until they do pass.
The California Supreme Court did exactly what they are supposed to do. THEY RULED. Whether you like the outcome or not is irrelevant. That is why they get paid the big bucks.
Prop8 passed. Eventually there will be enough generational replacement in California to repeal it. We're not exactly the buckle of the Bible Belt. Gavin Newsom was right. It's coming whether you like it or not. It's now just a question of time.
My problem is, how did this get on the ballot? Whether you agree with prop 8 or not, there is a bigger issue for me. How can they put some one's rights up for vote? This is kind of scary for me. I know they have to get enough signatures to put it on the ballot but that wouldn't be hard to do. I lived in CA and I used to sign those petitions while waiting for the Trolley. I never took the time to read any of them. Also when I went to vote, I would just vote NO on all of them because I thought it was a lazy way of doing things. Now that I live in Texas I see how out of control the CA props have gotten. We only had one on the ballot term limits. Why do we have elected officials to make laws if we are going to put everything on the ballot? Most people aren't aware of the laws or Constitutional rights.
get married is not a right.
Roe v. Wade has also shown us that it's not enough to rest on and depend on court rulings. We need an active and ongoing justice movement or else any rights we are given will be taken away, even if we are begrudgingly given them.
benne, you should remember that our rights are not given to us by the government or even the Constitution. They are given by our creator, they are self-evident and they cannot be taken away. A right "given" by a one-judge margin, overturning a previous popular vote is not a true right. The right of self-determination, free of judicial tyranny, is a much bigger issue.
Wait, was that right given by our creator, or by a judge? What about the right of self-determination, free of the tyranny of the majority? How big of an issue is that?
And some issues converged,
"In Arkansas, voters passed a measure aimed at barring gay men and lesbians from adopting children.
That vote was on the mind of many of the 200 people who protested Saturday in front of the State Capitol in Little Rock. One of those, Barb L’Eplattenier, 39, a university professor, said some of her gay friends with adopted children were fearful of state action if they appeared in public. "They think their families are in danger," said Ms. L’Eplattenier, who married her partner, Sarah Scanlon, in California in July."
http://www
Great piece. It's inspiring the level of uprising this has caused, it's the good that is coming out of something bad.
I do think it's a bit harsh to say they ran a bad campaign, though clearly some mistakes were made, when in truth they were just severely underfunded when compared to the millions pouring in to the Yes on 8 drive from the Mormon Church, the Knights of Columbus and other cowards. The funding wasn't even close, and that meant more ads for Yes, more airtime and more publicity. Hard to overcome that. If the election were held today, though, given the level of anger and uproar now that people have woken up, maybe it would already be different. Even as a straight man, it's hard for me not to feel "we shall overcome" because this is a civil rights issue that all of us as Americans should come to embrace.
According to Wikipedia, the campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $35.8 million and $37.6 million.
Watching from the sidelines in Washington state, I thought the campaign was awful. Marriage, love, commitment, etc. are emotional topics, and all I saw (until the end w/ Samuel Jackson) in the ads were dry, unmoving, and ineffective.
I think that using the term "coward" is incorrect; a coward will not stand up for what they believe is right. Religious people have the right to proclaim their beliefs in the public square. If you are asking for freedom for one group, don't get it by denying freedom to another. This is like attempting to end racial biases through the use of affirmative action. The people have spoken, twice now. They are not trying to eliminate civil unions but preserve the sanctity of marriage. If we change the definition of marriage now, how long before we have to change it again? Or will the gay community deny "civil rights" to the three people that wish to get married?
That's a very good point. The religious shouldn't be trying to exercise their rights by taking rights away from gays and lesbians.
The funds from the Knights of Columbus were used by teh heirarchy without asking their membership
Part of this was the money issue -- and part was the flat-out untruth.
We need laws that require political ads to prove the validity of their statements before an ad is aired. The BS about 'homsexuality being taught in schools' was a complete lie, but it scared people. If teh prop hate pushers had been required to stick to the facts, they would have failed.
See Tanene Allison's Profile
Thanks for this great piece Paul. We are truly in a new era where online technologies, old school street protests and justice-seeking court actions can all merge and play a part in reaching the goal of equality. But as this is new terrain that inevitably challenges old models of leadership (particularly with organizations), it is a robust public debate, such as this post, that is going to help us figure out how best to use what we're good at and move on from here. I have faith we'll work it out though. Thanks again for your thoughts on it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
