A little background on the effort to repeal Prop 8 in California is here, including some of the dynamics around the groups and what it takes to engineer a repeal.
Today, Courage Campaign announced it was not supporting a campaign to move a ballot initiative forward in 2010 that would repeal Prop 8. Previously, Courage had said it was open to such an effort, pending more discussion and analysis of polling/research efforts. From their press release via e-mail:
LOS ANGELES, CA -- The Courage Campaign today called for more research and time to change hearts and minds before returning to the ballot to restore marriage for gay and lesbian couples in California. At least one initiative to restore same-sex marriage is currently circulating that, if it qualifies, would appear on the November, 2010 ballot.
The Courage Campaign, in partnership with Lambda Legal, has recently concluded the first phase of extensive and groundbreaking research about public beliefs and concerns about marriage and homosexuality. It confirmed that attitudes are shifting steadily toward equal treatment of same-sex couples, and that conversations among family members and other close relationships inevitably speed the process. The statement released today is concurrent with a Lambda Legal statement.
"For months, we have laid out the criteria for moving forward. Like the Obama Campaign, we understand that we need a combination of powerful and clear research that informs an expertly run campaign, an unstoppable movement that harnesses the new energy we have seen since the passage of Prop. 8 and the connections through personal stories and outreach in order to win at the ballot box," said Rick Jacobs, the Courage Campaign founder and Chair. "We are taking the lessons learned from last year's Prop. 8 campaign, the campaigns in Maine and other states to understand the fundamental work that must be done before moving forward in California. We also must come together as a community to create a broad coalition and governance structure, put in place a strong manager and secure the resources to win. Right now, the pieces are not all in place to do so confidently."
[...]
Jacobs hailed the work being done in the field by grassroots activists, saying, "We must build our ultimate victory from the lessons of our recent disappointments," continued Jacobs. "We know that we can change hearts and minds through real conversations with our friends, family, co-workers and neighbors. This takes time and has to be built to scale -- so we can't delay. When we go back to the ballot, we must be strong, clear and embracing."
There are a few reactions I have:
One is that, given all the obstacles I discussed in my earlier post, the timeline, and some of the public and private polling numbers demonstrating voters have not moved much (just 51% in the recent LA Times poll support marriage equality, a poll that was weirdly championed as great evidence by even the group that is leading the effort towards a ballot initiative), this is the right move. Like I said, if you lose in 2008 and 2010, you cannot go back again and again and again. It's critical to get it right when we are ready.
My concern is that no matter how many organizations and advocates announce they will not partner with a ballot repeal effort in 2010, this will all become moot if it qualifies anyway- no one can afford to lose. Even I will find myself clearing my desk and going all in to make sure we don't lose. That's not to say announcements like this aren't important- particularly if you're someone who wants to starve the LHC ballot effort of support/money/volunteers so you don't end up having to work on an effort you disagree with and that you think will lose. But it's important to keep in mind. I've heard LHC has a slim chance of moving this onto the ballot given the logistical issues. But it's still a live round.
I'm never one given to emotional appeals over strategic arguments, and this is another case. Camp Courage co-founder Torie Osborn said "if not now, when?" and "we are the ones we have been waiting for" in announcing back in May that Courage was open to moving forward with a ballot repeal. A lot of the same arguments are made when one person says health care, lowering unemployment, climate change should be done before LGBT rights. While it's important to be mindful of the window in which you have to operate, it's more important to think strategically. In New York State, the State Senate Majority Leader hinted that marriage equality would be voted on after the Senate finishes its work on a deficit reduction package. My own view is that Senators don't want to appear to be tackling LGBT rights before making sure the state doesn't go bankrupt. That may rankle some, but honestly, that's fine with me, as long as we get it right soon after- and there's a deal in place to have a vote by the end of 2009. 2012 is not a long way off from 2010, and we have more work to do, so "if not now, when?" doesn't convince me.
A few months back, I wrote about moral hazard in the LGBT community around the National Equality March. The concept was whether march organizers, who up to that point (eight weeks out) had done a poor job of planning and the March looked like it would be a failure, who made the bed should be forced to sleep in it alone, or whether lots of LGBT community leaders and organizations would ride to the rescue to get them media attention, attendees, etc. It turned out to be the latter, as it became evident that many would rather not get embarrassed on a national stage. The moral hazard problem this created was that any big-name activist who unilaterally plans a major action that will get massive media attention can look at the March experience and witness that others will ride to the rescue to make sure the LGBT movement doesn't look stupid. Insulation from risk.
I'm starting to see this again in California as a movement to repeal Prop 8 is moving forward. The debate had been raging over the past year regarding whether to move forward in 2010 or 2012. Arguments in favor of 2010 include that civil rights should never wait, that there is a very palpable anger in the community to harness, that we could have won if the No On 8 campaign didn't suck so much. 2012 advocates argue that a presidential year is better for us in terms of turnout, that the polling hasn't shown any movement, that more persuasion needs to be done, that there isn't enough time or enthusiasm to raise the tens of millions necessary to win in California. And perhaps the biggest one is that if we lose in 2010, we're done for quite some time.
This past week, as Phillip with UniteTheFight reports, Love Honor Cherish, a Los-Angeles based advocacy group, announced a drive to obtain the one million signatures to qualify its already-submitted language for the 2010 ballot. There are a number of problems with their effort, though, and this is set up to be a very dangerous proposition.
