Why We Lost Prop 8: When Reactive Politics Become Losing Politics

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.

Comments

[Sepiastar]

Blaming the African American community is a scapegoat. I do not reside in California and I am heterosexual but the gay community needs to be realistic. What have been your attempts to bridge the gap between the African American community and the gay community? We're not just speaking of when it's time to "fight" for your personal issue, I mean in it's entirety. If you are knowledgeable of the African American community, you would know that it is very homophobic and it's because a LARGE majority believe in the teachings of Christianity. It is the reason African American women represent the largest percentage of new AIDs cases and yet, the Black church still refuse to address homosexuality in the African American community. It stems from the Black community's history with racism. The Black male strength and power has always been diminished in America due to racism and prejudice, so their sexuality has become the representation of being a "MAN" in the Black community. Plus, the church portrayal of homosexuality as the ultimate sin next to suicide has ensured that it is not acceptable in the African American community.

[EddiefromLA]

Oh please - we've reached out to them and supported them for years. Only to be thanked like this.
Let's see what Obama does. He will have to be their redemption.

[Sepiastar]

I don't know in what way you supported them but there is an issue with minorities and homosexuality. It's not President Obama's responsibility to earn anyone's redemption. I know you are frustrated but you have to devise a strategy and win supporters outside of your community. Start with the women!!

[freshnotbitter]

I am not somebody who is out there pushing gay rights but I can't understand what the big deal is about gay marriage.

I live in a place that is pretty typical and my immediate neighborhood consisting of 24 households has 2 gay couples in it. Suppose I were told that there is a box in each household containing 2 slips of paper one each stating that the couple in that particular household is A) Married or, B) not married.

One of those pieces of paper must be false.

What difference does it make which one is true and which is false? What is the point? Could somebody please explain to me what the significance is for anybody but the couple itself for whom the piece of paper simply provides legal rights vis a vis one another?

I just don't get it. This whole objection to gay marriage has me totally bamboozled.

I am told that legalizing gay marriage means that one could marry a dog. How could a dog consent to marriage?

I am told that gay marriage would destroy the "institution of marriage". Why would anybody stop getting married in Los Angeles just because two same sex eskimos got married in Anchorage? What exactly happens to the institution of marriage when gay people get married? We just had a bunch of gay marriages in California. So what happened?

The gay marriage issue makes you question whether you are living next to intelligent human beings or idiots.

[EddiefromLA]

If you'd even been a second class citizen and taxed more heavily, fired, beaten, or lobotomized, or killed you might start to get it.

[suejester]

People who have equal rights do take their rights for granted.

Let people have the choice of being married or not.

[billydog]

Why not push back against the gay marriage haters with demanding that divorce amongst married straight couples be abolished because marriage is too sacred to allow for divorce. They use the marriage is sacred excuse against gays who wish to marry, throw it back in their faces that divorce is an abomination to the sacredness of marriage and can not be allowed either. Demand the marriage
is sacred believers never be allowed to divorce.

[Kassandra]

Take it to the US Supreme Court AFTER Obama put a judge or two on there.

[sdskelton03]

First of all, Obama's first two appointments to the court will replace justices Ginsburg and Stevens, so those appointments will not be a net gain for liberals.

But most importantly, the US Constitution doesn't include a right for same sex marriagey.

If, as a society, we want to implement same-sex marriage, we should do it through our legislatures and referendum rather than unelected judges. It is the most democratic way.

[xdevildawg4u]

Was there a right to interracial marriage included in the US Constitution? The SUPREME COURT said their WAS. It was included in the first and fourteenth amendments. If the constitution "includes" a right to interracial marriage then it certainly includes a right to same-sex marriage ESPECIALLY when you take the Loving v Virginia ruling into consideration where the Supreme Court ruled that marriage to the PERSON (NOT "opposite sex person") of one's choice was a "FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT".

Please make sure you know what you're talking about before you make ignorant comments.

[JDLinPDX]

How right you are regarding how elections are approached in San Francisco. Remember going to a community meeting in 1996 in the Castro prior to the election. The suggestion to turn back the right was to have a march and rally winding up in the Castro. Well, that seemed a bit counterintuitive to someone who knew most Americans didn't pay much attention to San Francisco as, after all, San Francisco is really only a tiny city in a big nation and noted for being left leaning. But a march and rally were planned (but never executed).

The problem with San Franciscans is they fail to understand time and again that the rest of the state and country is not like them. Once again, this thinking assisted in ensuring Prop 8 passed. The base did not need to be rallied. The swing voters, the church ladies, the mass attendees - these are the ones who needed to be convinced.

I spent eight years in San Francisco watching what came to be called the San Francisco political phenomenon. Can't say I miss experiencing it first hand.

[Ramon01]

I’m really disappointed with the results in Florida and California. I think we need to think outside the box if we want to win this some day. I feel the GLBT is having a problem with the lables. As a latino we have less problems with these words because the word "casado" (married in spanish) comes from the word "casa"="home" and it sort of means "homesteaded" being a less explicit word than the word "Marriage".
However, if you look for the etimology of the word "marriage", it comes from the latin "maritare", from the word "maritus"=­"husband", which in essence means "getting a husband". Really, does Ellen and Melissa want to call their unions with a word that escentially means they got a husband, when in reality they got a lovely wife. If you look at it that way it's kind of moronic to call lesbians "married".
Continued…

[Ramon01]

Cont….
The same thing with the word "matrimony". From the latin "Mater"="mother" and "monium"="the action of, the condition of, the quality of". Maybe in this case, lesbians should call it matrimony and men should call it patrimony.
This is starting to get old. Does the gay community is really more interested in lables than actually getting their rights? Please, do as the straight people did when civil marriage became legal for them. Back then, they didn't consider you married unless you were married in the church. So straight people got their civil unions and started calling it marriage. So gay people, get your civil unions and when they ask you, say that you are married. Eventually it will catch on like it did for straight people. But please do something soon, this is one the republican's favorite distractions to blind us and not let us see the real problems of our country. We already lost the 2000 elections in part due to this issue, and look where it has gotten us.

[MormonDemo]

I do not live in CA and do not know how I would have voted on Prop 8. But I am a Mormon, and I know many Mormons who were conflicted about this issue, precisely because they do not hate gays. Many have gay friends or family members, and were very pained by this polarizing issue. Many voted "No" on 8. The vast majority who voted yes did so not because they hate gays, but because they believe marriage is a very important social insitution that cannot be re-defined by statute. I second all the suggestions to get the state out of the marriage business. Let the state recognize civil unions of gays and straights, and let churches marry who they will.

[tess01]

The pro-prop 8 arguments you are trying to make sound reasonable don't hunt. Sorry.

"they believe marriage is a very important social insitution that cannot be re-defined by statute"--Marriage is a creature of statute. Many states had miscegenation statutes prohibiting interracial marriage. Prop 8 is similar manmade law.

" I second all the suggestions to get the state out of the marriage business. ...let churches marry who they will." --My mother had to convert to Catholicism to marry my father in his church. Nobody has ever forced a church to marry a couple in violation of church teaching and nothing in current law mandated churches to recognize or perform gay marriages.

Why do religious people have a monopoly on defining marriage? Why can atheists and nonreligious people marry in civil ceremonies but not same-sex couples? Why does government extend benefits to marrieds that singles cannot enjoy? Are you in favor of abolishing any official recognition of marriage by government ? This is the logical extension of your argument.

As long as marriage is accorded special status by governments in benefits and other protections, denying marriage based on gender preference is a civil rights issue, and Proposition 8 is discriminatory. Your Mormon friends who voted "yes" on proposition 8 just told your gay friends they couldn't drink from the straight water fountain.

[Marefur]

Mormons who "believe marriage is a very important social institution that cannot be re-defined by statute." Mormons! That's rich.

[Quaoar]

What if a church decided that it wanted to marry gay couples? Would you support the big hand of government coming in to stop that church? That's what Prop 8 supporters are agreeing to.

[sjmaureen]

Just 2 weeks ago I attended a wedding of 2 women. The ceremony was performed by an Episciplain (sp.?) minister in a cathedral, will this be now against the law? Will we really intrude on the rights of the chuches who decide to officiate at gay weddings? This is screwed up, I do not want to feel like this, my young son(21) is gay and he is crushed, he worked to elect Obama he fights on the side of all, as a community organizer he has been active in organizing on behalf of those families affected by the ice raids (hispanics) and this is what he gets from that? If I had realized what would come with this election I would have been a Hillary suporter, I have been a lifelong Dem, no more

[FearlessFreep]

Obama "rarely got credit for going further than any presidential candidate had gone before" in coming out against Proposition 8. But that wasn't far enough, was it? He could have, and should have, taken in much higher profile in his opposition. But he basically played it safe, and that probably tipped the balance. This is NOT a good precedent for the Obama presidency.

[laborgrunt]

Yea he could have and surely would have lost the election and therefore there would not be an Obama presidency to speak of.

[FearlessFreep]

Get serious.

[MinuteMan]

I suspect that candidate Obama has been pulling his punches on some issues in order to become President Obama. I don't think anyone can get elected in this country without doing that to some degree, especially when the noise machine can take a seemingly inconsequential issue and make it front page news for weeks. So the question is what will President Obama do?

I suspect that he will take better positions on some of the issues he sidestepped in the campaign. However, I would also expect him not to get into drawn out battles on issues if doing so would prevent him achieving some of the major tasks that he needs to accomplish: stabilizing the economy, universal healthcare and closing out a couple of wars. The squeaky wheel does get the oil in this world, so on important matters it is important not to write off an Obama administration but to push and cajole it to take on important but not central issues.

[gorilla crossing]

I, as well as many other people across this country (and on these blogs), would rather have seen Obama not come out with guns blazing against Prop 8 and get elected rather than visa versa. Our country is too important. The people deserve the best, and his is the best. This campaign was relatively free from wedge issue politics, which definitely played to the advantage of a candidate who had an actual vision for the country (Obama).

I will put my own issues on the back-burner any day for the betterment of society. Not that my rights aren't important and that I won't continue fighting for them, but I would never want Obama to sacrifice his presidency and the future of our nation so that I have the right to get married.

Again, this election is just too important.

[FearlessFreep]

IMHO this was no either/or choice: Obama would have won even if he'd been more assertive in denouncing Proposition 8. Self-protection isn't leadership. Are you going to be making excuses for the man who's supposed to be leading you EVERY time he puts his perceived self-interest first?

[NABNYC]

During the last few weeks, I've gotten quite a few e-mails saying that Prop 8 was more important than the presidential election. I keep trying to block the Karl Rove e-mails, but he keeps hacking.

Don't blame progressives for prop 8. It certainly was not more important than the presidential election. That is the same type of hysteria we hear from the other side. In California, gay people are still free to have civil unions. The smart thing to do would be to stop using the word "marriage," which keeps bringing the crazies out, and just redefine the term "civil union" to include the same benefits as marriage.

Don't blame progressives. This measure was passed because of thousands of mormons spending their ample resources to put out expensive mailers, make flags, banners, mob the streets in communities throughout the state. They now are using gays as their recruiting and fundraising scapegoats. They formerly used blacks for the same purpose (recruiting ignorant white crackers into their church by announcing that God condemned blacks to be servants). And of course they continue to use the subjugation and slavery of women to please all the men.

So don't blame progressives. Get smart about this. Change the approach to getting the desired results. And sue the mormons to challenge their tax-exempt status, because they are the ones are pushed this thing through.

[tjgsd]

I so agree with Paul. I live in the Central Valley and the churches united in passing on the hate and discrimination to their congregations. I can't tell you how many arguements I have been in with these ignorant people. As gay we people we need to unite, maybe create a proposition that makes these religious organizations that promote hatred and discrimination pay taxes so we don't have to since we don't have the same rights as they do.

[strangelet]

I am a straight Californian. I voted NO on prop 8, and I am sorry to see that it appears to have passed. I think, however, that the general tenor of this article, and of many of the comments -- which seems to be that the NO campaign was poorly managed and undersupported by high-profile politicians -- misses a fundamental point.

This issue is certainly driven by people who are just anti-gay, but the reason they can sometimes get others on board has a lot to do with the dual semantics of the word "marriage". For a lot of people (including many gays) marriage is a religious sacrament. But the term is also used to describe a legal status. The thing is, the state has no business defining a sacrament. We need to work towards getting the terms "marriage", "husband" and "wife" out of the law. The state should only be in the business of sanctioning legal domestic unions. Marriage (or not) should be an option, not involving the state, that has ritual impact, but zero effect on legal status. The long-term answer is not state-authorized "gay marriage" but getting the state out of "straight marriage".

[laborgrunt]

OMG I agree with you whole heartedly. Im straight and the fact that I have to get approval from the state when i get married annoys me and smacks of un-Americanism.

[Marefur]

Laborgrunt, I'm going to take a bit of a leap here and state that I think you misunderstand strangelet's excellent point. I think there's a big misunderstanding out there about what, exactly, constitutes a marriage from a legal point of view. You need the marriage license issued by the state completed according to the state's rules, and then filed. The need for the license is not an "approval" process-- but is necessary for wealth-transfer, custody, tax, etc. reasons. I just wish people would dump all the heavy baggage they're carrying around relative to this term and realize that the legal union, while often referred to as a marriage, is not at all dependent upon any kind of religious ceremony . But for practical reasons, I think proponents of same-sex marriage (of which I am one) should start arguing for civil unions, then, once achieved, can start calling themselves married, because there's no difference -- AND it ultimately ends up hoisting the conservative fear-filled opponents with their own petards!

[Swerinjer2]

well at least there's one positive: liberal left culture warriors will be motivated in future elections.

[Swerinjer2]

I'm a left wing liberal that voted yes on 8. I want to motivate left-wing culture warriors to help with future elections. You know, the same way repugs keep abortion around since it motivates the loonies in their base. And after all, gay marriage rights don't make a big literal difference.

[coolmaiden]

I sincerely hope you're kidding.

[Swerinjer2]

why would i be? makes perfect sense to me.

[sjmaureen]

They do make a difference. How can you say that the rights of an entire group of citizens do not matter? , When I look at the heartbreak of my gay son should I tell him his life doesnt matter in the big picture of things? I sure hope you are no one I know, you are not a liberal, not in any way.

[superflu]

My opinion is the gay rights movement should think about repositioning this not as a matter of civil rights but as a matter of religious freedom.

Suppose a church wants to marry two women.

The government doesn't recognize it.

Basically, the government is favoring one church over another, which is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state and a case of the government telling churches what to do, which would make even right wingers conflicted.

In Alberta, where I live, the government dealt with the issue by getting out of the marriage business, where it has no place being in the first place. They simply took their Marriage Act and turned it into a Civil Unions Act. That's all it took. The government recognized civil unions, and let churches (or individuals) decide what is marriage.

Anybody else have an opinion on this?

[Swerinjer2]

yeah sure get the loony religious typed motivated to help future elections. Its all good.

[superflu]

Anybody have an opinion on what I said besides Swerinjer2?

[xdevildawg4u]

It doesn't work.

As a member of the United Church of Christ (which performs and recognizes same-sex marriages) I feel that it is OUR religious liberty that is being denied whereas legalized gay marriage would not threaten the religious liberty of ANY church that didn't want to perform or recognize gay marriages. I've argued this for a couple of years but no one seems to get the point; especially no one one the other side of the religious divide.

[sdskelton03]

"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."

You always had a "right" to marry. You never really had a "right" to same-sex marriage.

I am one of those live and let live types. I oppose same-sex marriage but don't think the world would end if it came about.

That said.

If you truley believe same sex marriage should be a "right," then enumerate it! All of those dead white guys left us a blueprint for governance that has a mechanism for creating new rights. Use it. Sponser a constitutional ammendment, pass it in Congress and send it to the states for ratification.

Stop looking for Judges to pull new "rights" out from under their robes. After all, if a judge can declare it, the next judge can take it away. But if you do it the right way, the way our founders intended, anyone who wants to take it away will have to go through the same process.

[gsgweb]

The court already affirmed same-sex marriage as a right based on the state constitution.

They did not "pull" a new right out from under their robes. It's very difficult to pass a constitutional amendment at the Federal level, and so it should be. It's remarkably easy to amend the state constituition however. And that's the travesty that has happened here. The Mormon church and the Knights of Columbus basically bought it by convincing a simple majority that they should be afraid enough of the two guys in the neighbourhood who want to get married to actually codify discrimination. Hear that? Be afraid. Of two people who want to get married.

[sdskelton03]

I think it is unfair and incorrect to characterize those who oppose same sex marriage as a bunch of scared simpletons.

I have a personal belief that I would like to share with you.

I learned a long time ago that it is possible for people to disagree with me and not be stupid, brainwashed, bigoted ect.

I think same sex marriage is an issue where intelligent, well-meaning and decent people can disagree.

[MinuteMan]

It really seems wrong that you can amend a state constitution with the same ease as passing a citizen's initiative on dog licenses or what not. That's why state constitution are huge.

A while back California was a beacon for a new and better way of doing things, but then
California blew off both feet when it passed Prop 13 and has been a shadow of its former self since then: budget crisis after budget crisis, library closures, threatened mass layoffs in the higher education system, lower performing K-12 schools, etc.