- BIG NEWS:
- Health Care
- |
- Sarah Palin
- |
- Barack Obama
- |
- GOP
- |
Why We Lost Prop 8: When Reactive Politics Become Losing Politics
Read More:
California Gay Marriage, California Gay Marriage Ban, California Proposition 8, Marriage, Proposition 8 Passes, Same-Sex Marriage,
Politics News
It pains me to describe it this way, but "No on 8" - like Michael Dukakis - blew a seventeen-point lead. Progressives were lulled into complacency by early poll numbers, and distracted by the Barack Obama campaign - even after it became apparent he would win.
But "No on 8" was also a reactive campaign that did not anticipate the opposition's arguments to sway swing voters. Bloggers were effective at pushing memes to define the opposition, but it failed to define much of the race. And "No on 8" did not push a simple and compelling message - "Obama Opposes Prop 8" - to the African-American community until the other side beat them to it, forcing them to play catch-up. This is no time for making excuses, or inspiring words that we're part of a greater struggle. Our right to marry just got taken away from us, and we've got to be smart if we're going to get it back.
I'll freely admit I was one of many progressives distracted by the presidential race and lulled into a false sense of security about Proposition 8. But in early October, after returning from a week in Wisconsin to help Obama, it became apparent that Barack was going to win by a landslide--and that Bay Area activists were wasting their time driving to Reno while there was important work to be done at home. New poll numbers on Prop 8 jolted me out of complacency (one could say I "reacted" to bad news), but my pleas about the presidential race fell on deaf ears. Somehow, progressives still shell-shocked from 2004 were afraid that simply believing Obama was going to win would "jinx" the outcome.
I heard a lot from marriage equality activists last night about "how far" we have come since the days of the Knight Initiative--Proposition 22, where 61% of California voters in March 2000 voted to add discrimination in the marriage code. But we forget how incredibly conservative that particular election's turnout was--and we simply don't have the same excuse for Prop 8's recent fate. California voters who narrowly supported Prop 8 also rejected the anti-choice Proposition 4 (despite it also being neck-and-neck in the polls), approved a bond for high-speed rail (Proposition 1A), and crushed Proposition 6 (the Runner Initiative) despite the state's general "law and order" reputation.
We need to face the fact that Prop 8 passed because a lot of liberal people voted for it--swing voters who should have known better, if only they had the right message.
These swing voters like to think of themselves as "tolerant." They believe they support gay rights, but are not always comfortable thinking much about the issue. They have a "live-and-let-live" approach, and don't appreciate any group of people indoctrinating their worldview on the rest of society. For a while, the "No on 8" message worked well with this crowd: it is morally wrong to have religious extremists impose their definition of marriage on the rest of society, singling out groups of people who don't apply and depriving them of a basic right. Telling them the Mormons were funneling $20 million into the Prop 8 campaign was an especially effective message for this group.
The problem happened when the Prop 8 campaign--through blatant lies and deceit--changed the subject into gays and lesbians imposing their agenda on our elementary school children. Suddenly, the people who were "indoctrinating" people who have a "live and let live" attitude was the homosexual agenda. It became apparent to me a few weeks ago when I was phone-banking for "No on 8." I spoke to a black woman in San Francisco's Western Addition who was dead-set against gay marriage now that she had been scared into believing we were imposing our lifestyle on her. And when people are afraid, it's hard to make them listen to facts--especially if they don't know you.
One of the basic lessons in activism is to not react to a problem when it comes up, but to be pro-active and frame the agenda. It's not like right-wing extremists haven't used the "gay marriage will be taught in our schools" line before, and the campaign should have been ready to anticipate such attacks. As far back as 1998, the first ballot proposition to ban marriage equality in Hawaii had a TV spot with a small child reading a book about two fathers--and he then gets confused. The message back then for swing voters was the same message California swing voters got now--"will my kids have to learn about it?"
Another basic rule is to anticipate what strategies the opposition will come up with to lure voters, and to preempt them with your own overtures. Gay marriage supporters were not happy that Barack Obama said he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman," but he rarely got credit for going further than any presidential candidate had gone before. He supports fully repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and - more importantly - he came out against California's Proposition 8. Knowing that Obama was going to win the state comfortably, "No on 8" should have stressed Obama's opposition from Day One.
They did not, and it allowed the Prop 8 campaign to get African-American voters on their side by leading them to believe that Obama supports Prop 8. As I've written before, the black vote was critical in this race. Polls showing Prop 8 either ahead or behind hinged almost completely on whether African-Americans strongly supported it--or barely supported it. Aggressive overtures needed to be made to that community, and there was no better messenger in this election for this group of voters than Barack Obama.
Instead, "No on 8" waited until the other side made their own hit piece that implied an Obama endorsement of Prop 8. By then, we were being reactive.
Finally, I did go to the "No on 8" campaign office in the Castro as often as I could--but quickly became frustrated at what they were asking volunteers to do. I was happy talking on the phone with swing voters--which was useful and effective--but they seemed more interested in having us do visibility in San Francisco, going to strongly liberal (even gay) parts of town to make sure our base knew they had to vote "no." Rather than preaching to the choir, we were told this was useful because much of our base was confused--that some supporters think they're supposed to vote "yes" on Prop 8 to affirm gay marriage.
I don't doubt there were a few cases of gay people in San Francisco who were confused, and accidentally voted for Prop 8. But this appeared excessively anecdotal and reactive, when I was far more interested in being pro-active and effective in getting work done. Ironically, it turns out that a percentage of our opposition was equally confused--if not more so, which made the issue a wash. When I dropped "No on 8" literature in East Oakland, I ran into an African-American woman--who said she would vote "no" on Prop 8 because she "really didn't want" gay marriage being taught in public schools.
It is now 4:22 a.m. on Wednesday morning, and Prop 8 is still up 52-48 with 90% of precincts reporting. Now that discrimination has been enshrined in our Constitution, it will require another vote of the people to have it repealed. I don't doubt that with the state getting younger, future efforts at marriage equality will be successful. But I can't help believing we have seriously blown an opportunity in this election to give the right wing a stunning defeat--one that would forever leave them on the ash heap of history.
We need to start now to organize ... and this time, let's do it right.
Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
%2BbsMJWINF6YeZ77CuUO%2BPNJuv1%2FTbVYyWC1A4jpqzTcaoiBJXh5cjqCxBj0IhTi89HYPv%2B099609pxyZ7%2FTu%2BtD4Eb5G4HAq
JV%2FK0TSTf%2B%2FYKV3PvJ3U0Wt1FU6MJT0TCrrVHAPBDYai2COsTGzz4Q%3D%3D
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 5
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
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
Why is there no mention on this board of the positively obvious?
Gavin Newsom's grandstanding comment "LIKE IT OR NOT", was so inflammatory as to cause normally sane people to feel personally challenged. We need to make it clear that Newsom does not speak for us.
As a citizen of San Francisco I can say clearly, and with pride, that Gavin Newsom DOES speak for us. That man is a HERO. How soon you forget that were it not for his initial move to start granting marriage licenses that there would not have been grounds for an appeal to the California Supreme Court that eventually resulted in gays having the right to marry for a few months. A beautiful few months in which no straight families were destroyed, no children suddenly turned gay that weren't gay before, god didn't come down from heaven and smite us, Armageddon did not happen.
Gavin Newsom is a HERO regardless of one bad soundbite.
Rob,
This issue is not about HEROES or personalities. We don't need someone else to deliver us. We don't need to hide behind others.
You failed to answer the question as to whether Gavin Newsom's grandstanding and arrogance has cost us the 4% difference between victory or defeat? I say Yes.
Newsom insists on being the face of the movement like some great white messiah.
Well, he doesn't represent me.
I'd like to clarify something. First, gays have no constitutional right to be married. The church, however, has the constitutional right not to marry you (first amendment).
The gays are going to have to realize that they're in for a long fight. People relaxed, they got cocky thinking this will never pass, they got distracted, and suddenly their own constitution works against them. Now they have to work twice as hard: get Prop 8 repealed, and secure their own rights.
Until it is established in either state constitutions, or our national one, they haven't secured their rights. Even accepting homosexuality is a new phenomenon around the world. Fewer countries exist that allow gay marriage than those that impose the _death penalty_ for homosexuality. Remember that: we've made social progress in the world beyond most nations on earth, and we will continue to make it. Learn from this mistake and fight the good fight.
The Constitution you speak of, EXPRESSLY denies Government to make ANY LAW regarding religion. It does allow you to believe as you wish. No matter how stupid or magical. It does not give anyone freedom to force the view of any religion over another. These laws expressly denies me MY religious view that I may marry who my god says I may.
If YOU do not want your religious rites to be public, then you must take them from the public domain.
As long as Government has a hand in controlling marriage law, YOUR religion has no controlling stake in who joins in marriage. You lose that right to control your rite. We have laws that bar you from blocking me from entering that union based on GENDER, and since nothing in a marriage license is based on the GENDERS of who may join in it. That license to Marry is not a license to have sex, it does not require or demand children be present. It just requires 2 Consenting Adults. You will lose your argument eventually in court. The California supreme court has already ruled that Homosexuals WILL have equal standing under California laws. They will either toss the amendment as violating equal treatment under California law, or invalidate the law granting marriages for all.
Someone explain to me why gays and lesbians don't throw something like the Boston Tea Party... a San Francisco Tea Party if you will... refusing to continue to pay equal taxes for less than equal rights.
I'm telling you, the argument of simply "for or against gay marriage" isn't a good enough argument. You've got to put people's money where their mouth is.
This is a tax issue. If you aren't going to give them equal rights, then by God they shouldn't have to pay equal taxes. And if they'd all get together on some kind of a class action lawsuit about the matter - you'd be amazed how many fiscal conservatives would see equality in a whole new light.
Equal rights for equal taxes or a tax rebate for those who don't get equal rights.
Someone explain to me all the reasons this isn't possible and then someone explain to them how to overcome each objection. Remember to be the squirrel... there must be a way over, under, around or through this tree of outrageous bs. I really don't know how to get around this, but I know it's going to get done so there is a path, we just haven't found it yet.
First of all, as a lesbian I was deeply disappointed in the passage of prop 8. While I understand the impulse to attach blame to someone, I think any anger toward Obama is misplaced. I realized halfway through all this campaigning that some issues were just more important. I would rather have a job than be married. I would rather have a home than be married. I would rather the economy be sound and the war in Iraq to end than be married. Maybe this is because I have faith that the we will have our rights. Perhaps President-elect Obama also feels that there are bigger issues to deal with right now. We should not throw him under the bus because we lost a few battles.
Second, it's been a long time since I was in grade school, but I don't once recall marriage being discussed there. A field trip to a gay marriage?? Puhlease.
I'm not angry at Obama - I'm angry at the black people who voted for this.
Your anger is still misplaced. We need to stop trying to blame anyone but ourselves. We did not present our view to the right people. We need to look at who we need to educate on our issues, religious organizations, the American people, all who vote. We wasted time and money talking to ourselves in big gay enclaves, like L.A., Atlanta, and Miami. We need to remember to talk to ALL Americans, even the ones who live in small towns in your own state. And we need to correct the religious biases against us. Until we do that,we will not be listened to, or shown respect. Show respect, but respectfully demand it be returned.
its sad but unimportant. gun rights, gay marriage, lots of other hot button divisive tactics by the right to keep a heterogeneous progressive movement weak.
in a state where medical marijuana is legal you should be able to fix this.
regroup, retrench, redo...
d
A BLACK VOTE FOR PROP 8
I did support gay marriage.
I'm the ultraliberal and accepting Christian who's also a registered REP.
However, mine is neither a faux tolerance nor the full endorsement of homosexuality that this fine author seeks.
I don't know a Black family without hands-on experience accepting and loving gay family members. My cousins used to drag me to gay clubs, and I always had a ball just dancing with them; so I know it's not contagious.
Still I oppose it being taught in public schools or in any way presented as a social outcome to be celebrated, encouraged or endorsed.
Yes...Prop 8 didn't include any teaching provisions. But we also know it only takes one gay teacher or principal to over-reach, and my 5-year old son, who sings in his kiddie choir at church, could be taken on a field trip to a gay marriage ceremony.
I was mortified to find that King&King textbook online. Why, does it even exist, if not to win kiddie hearts and minds with a fairy tale about a Prince marrying another Prince?
I don't need schoolprayer. Yet, you can't guarantee that my son wouldn't be subjected to King&King. In fact, if gay marriage WERE legal, then to NOT teach it could itself be illegal and discriminatory.
That's reverse tolerance.
Parents already have to compete with friends and the TV. If the alternative is also competing with gay activist teachers/principals, Prop 8 loses everytime.
Of course I meant "Prop 8 wins everytime" or gay marriage equality will keep losing...
...my point is that we must respect each other's families' boundaries and faith or lack thereof .
You mean, you wish we gays would just be quiet, and just disappear back in a closet, like something is wrong with us and we should not be seen or discussed in public.
Well I say no, I will not go back. No nothing is wrong with being Gay, we are different, but being different does NOT make something automatically bad, or wrong. It just makes us different than you.
You ARE disrespecting MY family values and MY beliefs and faith, because you are uncomfortable with the fact that a gay person may be one of YOUR family, and you do not know or wish that they exist.
I am a white gay male, I was born and still live in deep south Georgia, I had and still have family members who have problems with skin color. I do not. I have tried and still try to help teach them about differences. I helped my family to, and I/ we voted for Obama, not because he was a black man. But because I/WE thought HE is the better choice to lead.
All we ask,is for our equal view and story to be told. You already stated that you KNOW that we can not spread "gayness" by association. Then all I can say is,what do you have to fear? Talking about gay people will not make your straight children gay. But it will give gay children, especially the ones you say you still love, chance at respect.
"Reverse tolerance"... we have a word for that. Prejudice.
exactly....if my right to teach my son my way is usurped by an activist gay teacher then my tolerance of gay marriage in helping to make it legal has been reversed against me....so the prejudice is against me and my family, not the other way around....sorry for the confusion if in fact you misinterpreted my writing.
King and King is a story book. There is no gay sex in it. Try reading it. You could also do with a copy of George Orwell's Animal Farm while you're at it. I'm sorry you're uncomfortable that I exist. Teaching children not to harm gay people or to accept their peers who have gay parents isn't a bad thing. I remember when white people were against teaching tolerance of black people in the public schools because they "didn't believe in it."
I think it's disgusting that black people like you voted this way. Barack Obama's parent's marriage would have been illegal in many states. Many of these states had amendments to their constitutions banning mixed marriages - just like you amended the constitution of California. Shame on you.
I will never advocate for a black cause again, and I will not give one cent to any black candidate. I limited out on my donation to Obama and gave him the maximum $2,300. I will never give him one penny again.
I've advocated for the rights of blacks my entire life. I've supported the rights of latinos as well.
You're on your own from here on out. A lot of nice liberal white people voted for Barack Obama. He didn't get elected by having black people vote for him. A lot of liberal white people like me. Never again.
I LOVE THAT YOU EXIST
And I teach my kids the golden rule which is not to hit or speak bad or anyone....to just find non-violent ways to defend yourself, if possible....which I will do here.
You're obviously very intelligent and passionate and active in performing many good works. And like I wrote about my cousins, you're also probably very fun to be around personally when you're not feeling personally threatened.
So, I'm sorry that my desire to protect my parental rights to educate my son about marriage and sexuality in the absence of KING&KING has made you feel so threatened and uncomfortable that you seem to regret your support of Obama and the Civil Rights movement.
I'd say that your reaction seems a little extreme; but that's all relative, none of it was ever my intention and I am truly sorry that you feel so injured by my vote.
Neither of us has to feel that our rights are compromised.
I know there's no gay sex in the book.
What mortified me was the idea that my son would be exposed to same-sex marriage at such an early age. He'll learn to know, love and accept gay people like I did, from meeting his aunts, cousins and/or uncles who happen to be gay at family gatherings. I'll also speak with him at some point; but it won't be from some uncomfortable gay activist teacher on a crusade to win hearts and minds.
I guess you didn't see Ellen Degeneres explaining that homosexuality, or even heterosexuality is clearly not like a disease you can 'catch.' She was surrounded by heterosexuals... she had heterosexual parents, teachers, friends, class mates.... and look, in spite of everything she saw around her, she was still herself and herself happened to be gay.
I on the other hand had two older sisters who were gay and a best friend that was gay and OMG, amazingly it never kept me from being me and I happen to be straight. Your fears of your kids being turned gay by seeing happy gay couples or stories about happy gay couples indicates you don't really understand the gay thing at all.
This is a tax issue. If they don't get equal rights, they shouldn't have to pay equal taxes. It's as simple as that.
1. + FJRinLA did NOT claim "it was catching" Quite the opposite. So your flame post, Lollie is self-serving melodrama.
2." This is a tax issue."
So it's about money? OK, so challenge it in tax court, hire a good CPA and live happy.
EddiefromLA: your right to be angry but you should not direct that anger at blacks or Hispanics. Direct your anger at the Democratic Party.
GLBT community needs to take a long hard look at a party that chooses to get the votes of bigots in Ohio and North Carolina over our families basic rights. We fund their campaigns; we work for there candidates and they give us “separate but equal”. The GBTL community needs decide where we fit in or if we belong any longer in a Democratic Party that seems obsessed with adding people who hate us to their coalition.
I agree with your analysis. I too came late to the campaign in early October. I accept that I am partially to blame because of my complacency. However, the No On 8 campaign never did understand where this campaign should be fought. I am a white gay man living in San Francisco’s Western Addition. When I showed up on Election Day to volunteer, I was ready to head in to the heart of my neighborhood to talk to all the new African American voters. I assumed the campaign would be focusing on these voters because they were on a mission to vote for Obama and may not be planning to vote down the incredibly long SF ballot or not been aware of Obama “opposition” (see below) to Prop 8. These infrequent or new voters were still in play even on Election Day. However we were all sent to Van Ness Avenue to “preach to the choir” and wave signs at motorist.
I believe that the outcome of this ballot initiative would have been different if Barack Obama would have said four words into a microphone “Vote No on Prop 8”.
Make that five words.
The people who say Obama would have lost the election if he'd been more assertive in opposing Proposition 8 remind me of the people who said Clinton had to sign welfare reform to get re-elected. They're both toadies rationalizing an unnecessary sellout.
So now what Mr.Hogarth? I live in NYC but want to help. I'd like to contact you.
Prop 8 was doomed from the get go. Progressives needed the black vote to fight for the Obama presidency. At the same time they knew that the african american community is among the most homophobic demographic. Gays in California (and a few other states) were thrown under the bus to make a Democratic presidency happen. That's what the polls are stating. I was working in South L.A. on Nov 4th, and I saw so many african americans walk around with "Yes on 8" buttons, that I thought McCain might win after all, seeing that the Pro 8 yard signs in the valley were almost always accompanied by a sign for McCain/Palin.
He'll have to win next time around without my vote or my money.
NEWSFLASH Eddie,
He would have won this time without your money or your vote...or mine.
Anybody who thinks the black community is the most homophobic has their head up their ass. Or they just happened to notice a black person with a button.
Good analysis. I agree with most of it. But don't you think its ironic that we can change our most fundamental state law on a proposition that had people from both sides confused on whether they were voting for or against gay marriage and even about what they were voting for? That woman who thought she was voting to stop kids from learning about gay marriage should have her vote thrown out because that was not what the proposition was about. In fact, maybe the gay marriage won because if people thought yes was a vote for gay marriage, it won by 52-48. So we are willing to change the most stable law of the land on a confused vote and confusing proposition whose proponents ran a campaign based on lies? Are we a state full of idiots or simpletons? I have to wonder. Don't blame the NO on 8 campaign, its the state system that is broken. Its good to learn from the experience, I agree. But, more importantly, how can we as a people agree to change our constitution after a win at any cost political campaign rather than a serious discussion based on scientific evidence on various aspects of the issue instead of fears and religious dogma? It's ridiculous. And, its undemocratic. Its a plague on our democracy and our civil rights. It promotes tyranny by the majority against targeted minorities.
When the professional signature gatherers were out getting signatures for what became Proposition 8, I suggested the following technique to disrupt the process.
This was in response to what I felt was a silly method to convince people not to sign the petitions that Equality California suggested. It was to have gay people stand next to the signature gatherer and try to talk people out of signing the petitions in front of grocery stores. There was no way that method would have worked.
The facts:
Most of the people gathering signatures for the anti-gay marriage proposition were not volunteers, but being paid per signature.
The signature gatherers could care less about any of the propositions. They are doing it for the money. That is their motivation -- money.
The signature forms can not be photocopied per state law -- they have to be professionally printed. This of course, takes time and money to do. To have to print more petitions is costly.
What I proposed was this:
Encourage every person by email to use their personal cash and buy the signatures and blank forms from the signature gatherers. Ask them how much they are being paid per signature. Most will tell you. Pull out your wallet and tell them you'll buy the signatures with cash at the same rate they are getting paid. Then offer like $5 for each blank petition they have. I tried this out, and it totally worked.
But who voted for it? Blacks and hispanics. It's just like animal farm. I have so much rage about this. I've hired these same people. I've advocated for them. What did it get me?
I understand your rage. I find the attitude that some black people have that they alone have a monopoly on civil rights highly offensive. But racism is not the answer to homophobia. We need to enlighten them, not harden them.
I've said the following in other comments, but I'll say it again here. As for anyone who is "sick of having the gay agenda shoved in their face," we need to show them what shoving our agenda in their face really entails. We need to get in their face even more. We need to let them know that if they want us to get out of their face, they need to give us what we're entitled to--full equality under the law. That's our agenda. Nothing more, nothing less. And we're not going to go away. We're not going to shut up. We're not going to go back into the closet.
I am not so sure this is the best route. I am one who is convinced that government has NO right being involved with marriage of any type.
If 2 people (straight, gay, other) wish to have a legal relationship then they should simply write a legally binding contract. Government should have no role in what occurs in the bedroom.
Right now having goverment involved with marriage results in the creation of separate classed of individuals. Why should singles and marrieds be taxed or treated differently?
If you are not married you are legal strangers to one another. When you are married you are the next of kin. I've seen where the family of the deceased won't let the life partner come to the funeral.
Contracts do not guarantee rights. Family members of the person can legally overturn contracts. Besides as someone who has gone through the process of drawing up contracts, it's disheartening to know you have to spend a lot of money to set forth your wishes, knowing another group of people get the rights for free.
Your piece saddens me. You had two of the wealthiest religious organizations in the world up against - violating all of our constitutional rights. The blames belongs with them - not with you. I think it's time for lawsuits - and I think there would be money to back it up. How can the LDS church send a letter to its members asking for monetary suport for a politcal issue - and still retain a non-profit status. It is not only unconstitutional - it is against the tenents of the church - they are called to obey civic law as a religious doctrine. Utah papers reported on California propostions. The LDS church bought this vote. FIGHT BACK.
did the Mormon church buy the votes last night in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, as well?
Our error was in backing a black candidate. I've supported civil rights for black people my whole life. I will never support a black candidate again. It was primarily black women who voted against us. Our error was in thinking that people who have been oppressed would find sympathy with us, they hate us. Who would have ever dreamed that black people would vote to eliminate the rights of other people? If President Obama works for the gay community and uses the bully pulpit to help us, I might reconsider. Right now - I can fully understand how my Jewish friends feel when they hear Louis Farrakahn. How many Jews died fighting for the civil rights of black people only to be thanked with hate by the Nation of Islam? It's all about them, and them alone. They have already forgotten how many white gay people voted him into office.
Paid for by YESforMarriage.com supporting Prop 102. Major funding: Focus on the Family Action (out of state); Crisis Pregnancy Centers of Greater Phx.,
Pete King Corp., and Knights of Columbus (out of state). The catholic church was also a major contributor here in Arizona.
Cont'd
The Hispanic community represents a large percentage of Californians also, how did they vote? Homosexuality is an issue with the Hispanic community because of Catholicism. The gay community need to educate the people and it has to start with the churches. Start to construct a dialogue with the pastors and community activists and let them know that acceptance and love is suppose to be a part of their teachings as leaders in the community. You are not asking them to accept your lifestyle, but accept you as an individual and not allow their personal convictions to infringe on your live. Almost every black woman I know has a gay friend or relative, and most of them don't want to be the judge or jury against others because of the injustices they have endured. Build the bridge!
One exit poll has them at 60% against us. One has them split evenly. Why have I been advocating for them? They hate me. They voted to take my rights away from me. Build the wall!!!! Deport them!!
No one hates you. The issue is education. Low information voters do not vote in the best interest of the community. In my opinion, supporting the gay community should be vital for minorities because when one group endures discrimination, we should all feel violated. The problem stems from religious indoctrination, and that's the barrier to overcome.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
