If I were flithy rich ... (4.00 / 1)

I don't about you, it sounds like it could be a fun thing to do to put this on the ballot in every state that has the initiative.

I'd do exactly that .. just to PO the theocons .. they deserve it

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:38:40 AM UTC

During all of October (4.00 / 3)

I kept wondering why the No on 8 people were doing anything as far as outreach to the African American community. Polls clearly showed these voters were gonna vote Yes on 8, and yet the No on 8 people did nothing to fight it.

They should have dropped leaflets at every house in South L.A., telling them that BARACK OBAMA OPPOSES PROP. 8. I don't know if they tried hard to get Obama to appear in an anti-Prop 8 commercial or even a radio ad, but from what I hear they did not make such an effort. Even with Obama's direct participation, they could have blanketed L.A. with ads showing Obama and making clear his opposition.

Instead, it was the Yes on 8 folks who first involved Obama, using his personal opposition to gay marriage to confuse the whole thing.

Prop. 8 was very beatable but the No on 8 people blew it.

---

by: existenz @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:53:29 AM UTC

that should read (0.00 / 0)

"weren't doing anything"

---

by: existenz @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:53:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Agree Completely (4.00 / 1)

But that still doesn't speak to the fact that these voters were open to persuasion that needs to be looked at in a deeper way, well beyond just strategizing about how one particular campaign should be run.

That's what I want to start nudging folks toward thinking about.  I intend to do more analysis of this during the week, and write a longer diary about it for next weekend.  This problem isn't just going to go away on its own, even though the numbers will come to favor us.  There will still be an underlying residue that will make other related things difficult to do.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 02:20:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I believe I read a quote from some No-on-8 guy (0.00 / 0)

saying that they didn't want to alienate John McCain voters. Apparently they were afraid that the few genuine libertarians left in the GOP would vote for Prop 8 just to spite Barack Obama, or something...

---

by: Kanamit @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 02:35:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's stop blaming the campaign (4.00 / 1)

It's getting offensive.  You're essentially trying to pin the blame on we gay people ourselves for having had our own rights taken away.  This was an evil thing done to the gay community by selfish bigots--by which I mean everyone who voted to prevent loving couples from being able to care for themselves with the legal mechanisms that all of society takes for granted.

Worse, this emphasis on what the campaign did wrong is a form of denial and moral obfuscation.  Paul is raising an important point here about homophobia within the Democratic party.  What can we do about it?

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 02:38:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who's Blaming The Gay Community? (4.00 / 4)

It's the campaign we're talking about here.

And yes, part of it was apathy in the gay commmunity.  But, this is far too common a phenomena.  People want to be normal.  They want to think their gargantuan struggles are over.  It's a vcry human thing.

But a much bigger problem seems to have been the campaign's reluctance to put gays into the gay marriage campaign.  This was sharply at odds with the message of Milk, as many others have observed, and the campaign's failure on this count is the exact opposite the gay community's fault.

The failure to key into the black and Latino communities was similar in origins, IMHO.  Both these were avoided, ultimately, I would argue, because it was outside the consultant class's comfort zone.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:05:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you, Paul! There's a reason why I'm a huge fan of your work, you're so perspicacious! (4.00 / 4)

The failure to key into the black and Latino communities was similar in origins, IMHO.  Both these were avoided, ultimately, I would argue, because it was outside the consultant class's comfort zone.

Let me start off by saying I'm a gay black man (sort of wish bruhrabbit was still around so I didn't feel like I'm the only one of my kind who post/read this site on a daily basis), and the point you made that I highlighted above cannot be stressed enough. There are so many voices -- diverse voices -- in the gay community who could've been used in this campaign effectively to show that it's not just a privileged white person's struggle. Far too often in our media gay iconography is presented as a white male's problem/struggle. This does a complete disservice to the wide-ranging voices that are gay and minority, individuals who could argue the points about how important it is for gays to gain civil rights. Instead, we have Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan as our go-to representation of all things gay, arguing with blowhards such as Tony Perkins while simultaneously laying all the blame on black folks for taking their rights away.

The points made by Existenz are valid and I wholeheartedly agree with him. Many of the activists involved should've used Obama authoritatively in their campaign to defeat prop 8; they should've had more minorities on the ground, reminding many black folks of the historic figures in our history that were openly gay (i.e., James Baldwin, Bayard Rustin and Langston Hughes) who were vital to the civil rights movement, Harlem Renaissance and black consciousness. This would've reminded many of them that gays and blacks (much like Jews and Blacks who aligned together during the Civil Rights Movement) have far more in common than what separates us.

Recognizing failure in strategy is not negative nor is it blaming gay people for losing marriage rights. It gives those involved the chance to re-group and re-strategize to create a far more efficient plan that covers all corners, a plan that works.

---

by: Preston @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:50:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Since You've Mentioned Langston Hughes, James Baldwin And Bayard Rustin (4.00 / 7)

I'll just add that it's important to remember that they were playing crucial roles at a time when the black church as an institution was not committed to the civil rights struggle.  The SCLC was formed because the ministers around King and Lawson could not get wider institutional support, and so they had to create their own institution.

There is a profound historical misperception that gays somehow had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Movement, while the black church had everything to do with it, and therefore the church denouncing gays pretty much ends the discussion.  But this gets everything backwards.  The black church, like virtually all churches, was not a fighting insitution.  It was, for the most part, a very conservative institution.  And this was not always a bad thing, by any means, for a people who had so little to fall back on.

But when it was time to stop falling back, and to start marching forward, there were only a very few church leaders who were willing to join in, and they were almost invariably very young ministers. Their elders were not with them.  It was the movement that made the churches support them.  It was the parishoners who made their ministers stand up for them.  

But Hughes had been in the struggle for decades.  Baldwin emerged like a force of nature.  Rustin, though always behind the scenes, always seemed to be there when something was up, or needed doing.  The March on Washington was the epitome of this, not the sole example.  And so it is profoundly historically wrong-headed for black people today to be listening to conservative church leaders as moral authorities on civil rights.  They should be reading their Jimmie Baldwin instead.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:33:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Couldn't have said it better myself! (0.00 / 0)

And so it is profoundly historically wrong-headed for black people today to be listening to conservative church leaders as moral authorities on civil rights.  They should be reading their Jimmie Baldwin instead.

Precisely! Dare I say to you, preach on, brother?

---

by: Preston @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:44:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disagree (0.00 / 0)

The "much bigger problem" is the prevailing superstition and prejudice in our society against gay people and the fact that they are so widely tolerated.

Paul, you just put up (anecdotal, not conclusive) evidence that 60% of black and Latino people voted to take rights away from total strangers, and then you turn around and say that the people whose rights were taken away failed because they didn't "key in" to those communities?  What does that even mean?

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:28:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Am Talking About The CAMPAIGNS (0.00 / 0)

What I wrote was quite clear.  This is a persistent problem for Democrats and progressives.  The culture of political consultants is deeply at odds with us and our values.  They are ashamed of us.  Not just gays, but everyone, from labor unions to environmentalists to peace activists, you name it, they are ashamed of who we are and what we believe, and they are always thinking in terms of getting something over on people, because they don't think that being honest about ourselves and our values can posssibly be a winning strategy.

That's what I was writing about.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:39:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the data, by the way (0.00 / 0)

And the analysis.  Nice to see what the numbers actually say, finally.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:49:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm curious (4.00 / 1)

If suggesting that telling Obama voters that Obama was against Prop 8 is tagged as "denial and moral obfuscation," how are there going to be useful answers to "What can we do about it?"  


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:09:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

looking at my comment again (0.00 / 0)

I feel I should express some more sympathy here.  This vote was the kind of disaster that is literally unimaginable to a straight white guy like me.  Obviously no one should blame the gay community for it.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:14:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks (4.00 / 1)

I actually do agree with many of the specific critiques I've heard about the No On 8 campaign.  (I'm observing from a distance, from Mass., so I can't really speak to many of them in detail.)  And I should add that I didn't have a particular reason to single out existenz.  I've just been hearing a lot of this kind of thing lately.

What I'm trying to point out is that there's a fundamental problem with thinking that the key to this issue is coming up with ways for gay people to be more appealing to homophobes.  In my mind, that kind of argument is a sign that the progressive community has failed to fully commit to the idea that anti-gay prejudice and discrimination are unacceptable.  (We thankfully did get a lot of support, institutional and personal, from progressives on this initiative, though, and it was nice to see.)

People who voted for this are responsible for their votes, and they deserve condemnation, because this is an issue where there is a clear right and wrong based on our political traditions.  It is not okay to take people's equal rights away because you don't like them.

Let's have high expectations for society and make clear what they are, not accept lazy prejudice as just the way things are--and then try to figure out a marketing campaign that somehow ameliorates that situation.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:20:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

North, south (0.00 / 0)

LA County was clearly the biggest example but the coastal communitites of California south of Santa Barbara (traditional Democratic strongholds for the most part) consistently voted for Proposition 8 while North California voted no.

Per the Secretary of State's site, the 600,000 vote loss came about with the following county-by county "yes percentages:

Alameda 38.0%
San Francisco 24.8%
Marin 24.9%
Contra Costa 44.6%
Monterey 48.9%
Napa 44.4%
Santa Barbara 46.4%

Los Angeles 50.1%
San Diego 53.8%
Orange 57.7%
Riverside 64.7%

Is this simply a matter of minority population or is it a mix of the effort made by the gay community being concentrated more in Northern California plus demographics?   Inquiring minds from out of state wabt to know.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:00:18 AM UTC

It's Sort Of Complicated (0.00 / 0)

which is why I promised another diary next week.  San Diego and OC are long-time GOP conties, while inland counties like Riverside have long been more conservative. So it's only LA that was really out of line with expectations.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:13:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The map (0.00 / 0)

I didn't see the map on the Secretary of State's site previously posted for the results (a table was provided instead) but it was pretty clear that there was more of a north-south divide on Prop.8 than in the Presidential results.  

Northern Cal showed a range of Yes from 24.9 to nearly 50% (but not quite) depending on how rural and how close to central Cal it was.  With SoCal the range was more like 50.1 to 70% No.  Orange is interesting.  It was barely carried by McCain yet voted only 57.7% yes.

San Diego also looked surprisingly liberal on 8.  Riverside is large and as expected pretty bad.  Some of the rural or at least inland countires in SoCal were up in the 70s.

I have to admit, I tend to look at everything through House results and when Orange County threw out Bob Dornan years ago it took a leap forward in my opinion.  I see San Diego as having Bob Filner and Susan Davis.

What makes LA the key is the size of the county more than anything.  Fourteen million people.  More than what 46 states?  

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:31:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maps Next Week. (0.00 / 0)

I promise.

What can I say?  Congress ain't everything.  It's a lot, but not everything.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:42:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That list is dishonest. (0.00 / 0)

Can we please finally remove the last item from that list?  If we're going to pick Biblical properties of marriage, can we make sure we've at least actually READ the Bible?  It's incredibly dishonest to cite Lot's daughters committing incest (which is elsewhere prohibited in no uncertain terms) as a Biblical custom or imperative.  It's just a story intended to justify calling Moabites and Ammonites bastards.  I've seen that list in a few places -- the one you quote is actually a reply to a comment I made about reading the Bible correctly regarding homosexuality (it's pretty clearly against it) -- and nobody seems to notice that the last item just doesn't belong in a list like this.

Also, the one shoe thing is actually supposed to be a public shaming, much like a Bush press conference in Iraq.

Just to clarify, yes, I pointed out that the Bible is clearly against homosexuality.  As an atheist, I don't actually care what the Bible says other than for the sake of education (which is why I'm reading it; it's interesting to see how the ancient Israelites and early Jews thought) so the Bible's position is pretty obviously not my position.

---

by: mauro7inf @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:02:34 AM UTC

Sorry, But You're Mistaken (4.00 / 1)

The inclusion of the Lot story is mirror image of how the story of Sodom and Gamorrah is generally misconstrued, so it's perfectly appropriate to include it.  (See Wikipedia for more details.)

Furthermore, the Bible is not "pretty clearly against it."  Sacred texts are tricky to read and there is considerable dispute regarding homosexuality and the Bible.  However, the Bible is much more clearly in support of slavery.  Or rather, was more clearly in support of it, when it was an ongoing social institution.  It's not so clearly supportive of reinstating slavery, though.

Much more clear-cut than either of these, thoug is the support for a (1) flat and (2) stationary Earth.

As for evolution, forget trying to argue that either way.  Just try to reconcile Genesis 1 and 2.  Get back to me when you're done with that, and then we can talk evolution.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:40:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]