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.
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
You're right about preaching to the choir. The LA Times had a pretty good map display with breakdown by county:
http://www
The Prop 8 results show the counties voting for and against with no big surprises. No point wasting resources around the Bay Area. The effort has to go into changing the way people are voting around LA & San Diego. They have been Republican areas in the past, but they are also Californians who might be persuaded to do what's best for California. There are good fiscal reasons to encourage stable couples who become participants in the institution of marriage and all of the financial endeavors associated with it.
The "children finding out" thing needs to be debunked to be rendered ineffective. You don't tell young children about the mechanics of sex, whether straight or gay. You tell them about love. People get married because they're in love. Usually, boys fall in love with girls and girls fall in love with boys, but not always. Sometimes, girls fall in love with girls and boys with boys. That's OK. Love is a good thing. I raised 3 kids in SF; it was never a problem for them.
I absolutely agree with telling children about love.
This is a time where the world is filled with so much hate, violence, and war. There is no logic behind preventing LOVE.
A better future can only be created through teaching children tolerance and acceptance of those who differ from ourselves.
...50 years from now, people will look back on this discrimination and wonder how it ever happened.
Not just California,
Arkansas Initiative 1:
Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children
Yes
57%
No
43%
Arizona Proposition 102:
Ban on Gay Marriage
Yes
56%
No
44%
California Proposition 8:
Ban on Gay Marriage
Yes
52%
No
48%
Florida Amendment 2:
Ban on Gay Marriage
Yes
62%
No
38%
oh, and Florida already has banning of Gay Couples Adopting Children on the books...
Wow that must hurt. i hope this motivates you very strongly in the future.
This will be overturned. It's unconstitutional. Period. It will be a bigger victory in the long run.
did you know that
Arizona Prop 101 banned gay marriage last night
Florida amendment 1 banned gay marriage last night
Arkansas also banned gay adoption last night
do you think the Court, an Obama or Bush Court, will overturn all of this?
I hope it gets overturned. Prejudice against gays is cultural. What next? Are they going to pass laws not allowing gays to have children or to force them to give them up for adoption? It's sad that prejudice against gays is completely lost on Blacks considering they are still recipients of bigotry. Says more for their religious brainwashing then their lack of understanding that discrimination is discrimination no matter the color, gender, religion, or sexual preferences. Pity that people can't understand that being gay is not a choice anymore than skin color is.
Hope you are right, huffdog!
Instead of wasting more time and money two years from now trying to repeal this amendment, why don't we campaign to replace the word "marriage" in all California laws with "civil union"?
I don't care if religious people get to keep the word "marriage" for themselves. They think they own it, and I don't need it. (Note to religious LGBT's: I wish you luck as you carry on the fight for marriage equality in your churches, mosques and synagogues; but I want civil rights, not religious rites.)
What I care about is having my (now 20-year long) relationship regarded as legally identical, under state law, to any heterosexual loving, monogamous partnership between two consenting adults.
Here's my campaign slogan: "Draw the line between church and state, not between gay and straight."
It doesn't matter what you call it. THEY don't care a nit about marriage. THEY wanted to vote for something anti-gay. It could've been an amendment to prevent openly gay and lesbian persons from using public transportation or shopping in Asian grocery stores. It doesn't matter what it was, the vote was an expression of pure hatred, nothing less.
If you think they'll countenance your "civil union", think again. Florida's Amendment 2 already prohibits civil unions. Other laws here prohibit my partner (of 18 years) and I from adopting, despite the documented abysmal condition of Florida's foster care system. THEY don't care about the children. It's just hate.
I think every gay person living in Florida should pack up and move. Then watch the Floridan economy sink.
YES! DRAW THE LINE AT A COMPROMISE WIN/WIN!
"Draw the line between church and state, not between gay and straight." Well taught, well written, and a point of compromise. The state version of marriage but without the word (MARRIAGE) would be the "Civil Union Ceremony" with gay or straight having all the same problems, (DIVORCE) and who pay's who. But, its only insanity to go up against the "Holy Roman Catholic Church", Islam, Mormon, Judaism and religious "DOGMA", that is simply cutting your own throats, at worse and undermining your positions at the least. What two Adult consenting individuals do behind closed doors is not the States or anyone else's business. Compromise Win/Win, "Draw the line between church and state, not between gay and straight."
What a great idea. Let's remember what we're after: equal treatment under the law. If religious and conservative voters are thrown off by the use of the word "marriage", then why don't we "campaign to replace the word 'marriage' in all California laws with 'civil union'", as he says? Marriage would be left to religious institutions ONLY. Gays and straights alike would have equal access to the purely civil institution, civil union.
That does seem like a winnable war. We get equal treatment, and voters concerned primarily with religious implications only need to be concerned about decisions their own faiths or denominations make, concerning whom to "marry".
Nothing will appease the homophobes. The best defence is a good offence.
SAME-SEX-CIVIL UNIONS NOT SAME-SEX-MARRIAGE!
The reason that (Gay's-Hom
I already screamed about this on the other No on 8 blog.....l
How many "Yes" signs did I see? HUNDREDS.
They won because they worked for it. Now WE have to go back to court.
there were millions of signs and bumper stckers here in the bay area, but that was preaching to the choir.
LDS money had something to do with it too.
Next Stop: Federal Supreme Court!
When we examine this from a federal constitutional perspective I have every confidence it will be overturned and a precedent will be set that will ensure ALL Americans equal rights forever.
right. John Roberts, Scalia, Thomas are going to overturn this....
1) http://en.
2) http://en.
AND we will likely see two or three new judges this term.
I'm very confident, I'm sorry if you're not.
Long and short
Gays are a huge afterthought for the progressive movement. After a bad decision like this, everyone is sad, and "Gee, I never thought it would pass," but the progressive movement still hasn't recognized the necessity to mobilize rapidly and effectively for gay rights without the gay movement having to cajole and drag it every step of the way. Our Hollywood, corporate and progressive support was wonderful, and although in the end it was not too little, it was indeed, too late.
We cannot win without the support and leadership of our progressive movement actively working on our behalf. If our Democratic Party keeps finding the need to sweep gays under the rug, we will continue to lose the battle for lgbt civil rights until we can count on the broader progressive community to advocate with us and for us.
I am thrilled with the support we received from our supportive churches and from the tons of lgbt and straight volunteers who worked on the campaign. However, I am bone tired from working against Prop 8, and frustrated at the lack of urgency I encountered elsewhere among Los Angeles liberals who were surprised that the election was going to be close.
I don't think it would have worked to go out and have face to face conversations about it with blacks, liberal christians etc.
I think it would have been good to create some distance from Gavin's comments saying gay marriage "its gonna happen whether you like it or not"
and to create some distance from the scene of those kids who attended the lesbian couples wedding- that created more confusion with the no on 8 message.
it would have been best to spend the money doing a paid for televised debate or posting on you tube a panel discussion of the issue and explaining what rights gay marriage would give and what rights civil unions give-- and telling folks what isn't true, quashing any of the false assumption. Burning that into a DVD that could have been mailed out etc. --that would have allowed folks to educate themselves w/out being confrontational.
Just some suggestions.
Gavin Newsom bears some of the blame with his careless comments.
Thank you for this article. I can attest to everything you describe about the bumbling No on Prop 8 campaign, as I ran into the same bizarre stuff when I was volunteering re: preaching to the choir. This was a shamefully run campaign. I was telling people months ago that Yes on 8 would pass, because of the fact that California is a sharply divided state -- it's not a small, manageable electorate like MA. It is large, unwieldy and for all intents and purposes, an uneasy mash up of the progressive, educated enclaves (SF bay area, LA) and the God-fearing, easily-led Bible Belters and low information voters who are unfortunate homophobes. The No on Prop 8 campaign's big mistake was not realizing the harsh reality of this contradictory state, and not acting on offense right out of the gate. This campaign should have been run on the assumption that any ballot measure harmful to gay people will pass in California. I don't know what we do now, but I can only hope that whatever challenge we mount to this is led by an entirely new leadership -- perhaps someone inside the Obama campaign in California, which was a fantastically run organization, will step up.
Run a campaign on the assumption that it's going to fail? That's an interesting strategy.
Oh, spare me the sarcasm. You know what I meant. There was no sense of urgency to the way the campaign was run, only complacency and a naive and blinkered view of the social realities of life in CA. There was no reason to think that the majority of Californians would shed their homophobia and vote No just because it was "unfair and wrong". They did a poor job of outreach to the people who should have been their natural allies on election day, the African American and Latino voters. The ONLY effective No on 8 ad (Samuel L Jackson doing voiceover and linking anti-gay discrimination with California's history of discrimination against other minorities throughout history) began airing in the final 3 days of the campaign, more than 3 weeks after early voting had already begun. This was a disastrous campaign from the get-go.
Obama stated quite clearly his view point.
I am disappointed in California, not Obama. I blame Gavin Newsome for his inflammatory comments when the judge passed the marriage law, not Obama. I'm disappointed in everyone besides the person who has no blame.
I also blame myself, not Obama who was running against the harder odds.
Now is the time WE stand up and take responsibility, now is the time WE work to overturn this unfair amendment to the California Constitution.
if only quietly stating the view point is good enough. why he doesn't need the billions of $$$ on TV ads?
I understand he is in more difficult position because of national spotlight. But thats no excuse for the fact that he didn't provide any leadership for black community on the issue.
Not to say anybody else, McCain or Hillary can do any better, but I do think all things considered, Obama is one of the major reason for prop 8's pass, which McCain or Hillary would have had different impact.
He take's advantages of black turn out, thats why he has more responsibility than Hillary or McCain for the result of prop 8.
If Obama had come out in support of gay marriage, he would have been toast. Both he and Biden played their best card - saying they define marriage as between a man and a woman and saying they were against Prop 8. This election was a catch 22 and Republicans knew it. If for some reason Obama had lost because of his support of gay marriage, African-Americans would have blamed the gays. Now the gay community is blaming the African-American community. What needs to happen is for community organizers (yes them) to bring these two communities together and make links between racism and homophobia. Organize, build coalitions, find common good. Yes, we can!
I'm really sorry for the loss, it amazes me that a state Obama carried so easily could pass this garbage. I have never heard any argument banning gay marriage that ever made sense to me. I'm straight, so why or how does does gay marriage hurt me - someone please answer that one simple question. Uggg, seems like we still have a long way to go. Does this nullify all the marriages up to this point?
I left out one thing, if you are going to tell me why equal rights for all is a problem, you may not use the word God in your response.
if your a straight woman or a straight guy living in San Francisco you compete with married couples for resources- cost of living stuff- apartment rates -health care
the issue is the economy first
pay equity and healthcare have to be addressed first
pay equity for women
healthcare for all
addressing gay marriage before those two issues hurts everything
look at the fact that the abortion rights issue was defeated
the yes on 8 folks won but it was not just because low income christians voted for it.
I'm a straight person who supports gay marriage as well, and one thing I believe gays must hammer home is what you've just stated.
Marriage isn't a religious institution. It's a legal contract between two people. Now, you can add religious trappings to the ceremony if you like, but that doesn't mean you have the right to force others to bring religion into the mix.
I can have a blowout religious wedding like Lady Di if I can afford it. I can invite every evangelical I can think of, and turn the ceremony into a religious extravaganza if I feel the need.
Or I can go find a JP or a drunken sea captain and have a marriage contract in five minutes. When you take the heterosexual fantasy out of the process (which divorce does with a vengence) people can see it for the legal contract it is.
Every time a gay couple is denied the right to marry, the Constitution is being violated, pure and simple. Any person who doesn't believe that, should imagine how they'd feel if their right to bear arms, or vote or buy property or any other right they hold dear was suddenly taken away.
It drives me nuts that both sides of this debate are so narrow minded and don't actually attempt to reason or see things from the other perspective. They both just think the other side is stupid and perverse. "Tolerance, you hateful evil bigots" is the cry from one side and "The God of loves says so, you evil sickos" is the cry from the other. Real productive. These arguments are only surface deep and never interact with each other.
Here is a thoughtful argument against same sex marriage that doesn't mention God once (in fact, one of the authors is gay):
http://www
OK, here's my response to "they'll teach our children about gay marriage."
Yes. They will tell the kids the truth for a change. What a concept.
So what? It will be taught in an age-appropriate way. The schools are not going to lecture children on how gay people have sex. Hell, they won't even get graphic about how straight people have sex, and most people are straight.
For a 2nd-grader to learn that when she grows up, she can marry "a princess," as one of their ads has it, is entirely appropriate if that's what the law is. By the time she actually is old enough to marry, hopefully she will know her sexuality and pick an appropriate partner. But they call that recruiting. We know better, and we have to make that point.
In the meantime, I joined Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which fights against religious dogma being enshrined in law.
http://www
Even this loss will advance gay rights. All the media about this gets people thinking. Here's my experience as a straight who grew up not knowing gays were around:
I vaguely avoided gays, but didn't know why. Then in 1992 Colorado voters passed Amendment 2 (which never was in effect as all courts ruled it unconstitutional) which would have banned gay rights laws like Boulder, Aspen and Denver had passed. So it was all over the news. I remembered WHY I was homophobic: the first gays I knew of were drivers who picked me up while hitch-hiking at age 18 and HAD THEIR HANDS ALL OVER ME!
Once I understood where my fear came from, I relaxed and now have plenty of gay friends. One, Jared Polis, was just elected to be our Congressman! He did more than anyone to turn Colorado from "Red" to "Deep Blue", both by funding Dem campaigns (he's wealthy) AND by funding ballot initiatives for more school funding, renewable energy, preventing lobbyists from giving "gifts" to legislators, etc.
So ballot initiatives get things on the biggest "table": the ballot. That's a huge way the ignorant learn. Ballot initiatives are the origin of most reforms, such as women's suffrage (passed in 13 states before Congress went along), direct election of Senators , publicly financed elections, medical marijuana and increasing minimum wages. See http://Vot
Evan, sorry that you were hit on by those guys, but look at the bright side: at least they found you attractive (a str8t friend of mine says that it's always an ego boost to have gay men tell him he's cute since it's better than NOT being told he's cute by anyone!)
Take it to the Supreme Court as an issue of Establishment of Religion.
Nothing in US Constitution defines marriage this way; only "tradition" does, backed up by SOME denominations' interpretation of the Bible. A law/referendum that essentially elevates one verse of scripture (Leviticus) over another (Love thy neighbor//Judge not) is picking sides in religious matters.
Freedom will come.
right, your gonna take this to the Supreme Court that decided Gore v. Bush
that makes sense...
yeah, but by the time it hits the Supreme Court there should be a couple of new justices put there by Obama. Moderates who won't take the extreme religious interpretation of the Constitution like Roberts and Alito does.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
