Gay marriage battle to return to Calif. ballot

[kpete]

Source: MSNBC

Gay marriage battle to return to Calif. ballot

SAN FRANCISCO - Gay leaders say they are moving into campaign mode with an eye toward trying to repeal Proposition 8 at the ballot box as early as next year after the state Supreme Court upheld the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages.

"So the court has said we have to go back," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California. "We believe the political drive, the momentum, is there to do that."

The door to gay marriage in California — opened with a 4-3 ruling by the same court last spring and closed by voters in November — remains blocked for now as a result of Tuesday's 6-1 decision. The court held that the ban, which passed with 52 percent of the vote, was a legal exercise of the virtually unfettered initiative power the California Constitution grants its citizens.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30955704/

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[montanto]

2. Good.

Never say die. This time we keep the fucking mormons out of it and win.

[MessiahRp]

3. Great news...

Hopefully the rest of the public has figured out what a bad idea Prop 8 was to begin with.

Rp

[ronnykmarshall]

4. The same group that blew it before?

Oh great.

[nichomachus]

7. What do you mean "blew it?"

I know it's great sport to shit all over the people who ran the No on 8 campaign.

However, Prop 8 passed because of an endless series of lies told to churchgoers by their priests and ministers.

Please tell me, in your infinite wisdom, how you counter that? A nice tea party, maybe, so you can get to know the people who are going to vote against you anyway -- because their priest or minister lied to them.

The only way anyone could have countered the pro Prop 8 forces was to first convince churchgoers that their priests and ministers were serial liars.

The No on 8 people put the truth out there -- but priests and ministers lied, lied, and lied again to people who trusted them. They had these people in their clutches for hours and hours a week and scared the bejeesus out of them. That is almost impossible to overcome.

[cosmicone]

15. I disagree. The No on 8 people blew it.

They had significant money advantage and an early lead in the polls. They remained in their false sense of security, conserving the cash for other campaigns. They didn't even spend 33% of the money raised.

They failed to poll how African Americans would vote on the issue knowing that scores of African-Americans would be coming out to vote for Obama.

They needed strong commercials showing black people discussing how interracial marriage was illegal and how Prop 8 resembled those times etc. Nothing was done.

They were, in face, projecting victory on election day -- they were THAT clueless.

[ronnykmarshall]

18. and vacations by the so called leaders right before the election.

[Retrograde]

33. and over-enthusiastic No-on-8 groups blocking the sidewalks outside of polling places

here in a place that was strongly opposed may have swayed undecided voters the wrong way.

A disciplined, focused campaign in areas where Prop. 8 passed would be more useful than preaching to the choir. The Bay Area is going to support gay unions anyway: rather than use the resources here move them to the Central Valley where they may make a difference.

[imdjh]

19. I agree with your conclusion and disagree with your assessment.

First off- given the circumstances this was a project that had never been done before. And these people took on the task. If there was another group doing better work, then we need to know who they were. Otherwise, we're kibbitzing.

The mistake with the African American vote had nothing to do with "education" as some excuse makers like to proclaim. You can't educate people out of prejudice. The mistake was in not making the deal, in not making the Obama team make it clear that defeating Prop 8 was part of the plan. Some would argue that we would come to that deal in a weakened position because the gay community was generally considered to be in Hillary's corner in the primary- but therein lies the second mistake we have made as a community.

We're too desperate. Obama's team and ardent supporters had a "Where else ya gonna go?" attitude towards us, and we are so desperate we GAVE that to them. We gave them the tools to bully or ignore us, to take us for granted. We need to have a "nothing to lose" attitude. And we need to get that together regardless of what happens on Prop 8. IN 2012 if we aren't willing to tell Obama and all Democrats to go fuck themselves, then we are the silly powerless homos they take us for. Roy Cohn will lie in his grave singing "I Told You So.".

Our numbers are debated, but when you take the minimum estimate and add in devoted family and friends- we are equal to the black, or hispanic vote and we outnumber all the other minorities. We need to swing that bat, but we can't do it if our people are running around wring their wrists because they think that telling the Democrats in power to go fuck themselves is going to be the end of the world, the death of the ozone layer, and the funeral procession for all that is good and decent. it's just another fucking election- but the Democrats in power it's the paycheck. We need to get a grip on that paycheck and let them know that it's in our hands. Few of these people were elected by a majority larger than our numbers- Obama certainly wasn't. We need to understand and use POWER.

[nichomachus]

22. I have decided that I will not become

a "Log Cabin Democrat." If the party will not support my cause -- Obama went AWOL yesterday -- then I need to reconsider my allegiance and my support.

[imdjh]

24. "Log Cabin Democrat" Wonderful! Did you coin that?

I love it.

[nichomachus]

34. Yup -- just now

[Maat]

63. This Straight-Against-H8 made the same decision ...

as of the end of this week, I'm no longer a Democrat; I'm a "declined-to-state," or an "independent."

The de facto leader of the Party, Obama, stands diametrically opposed to what I believe in .... in several instances.

The kickers for me are his stand on healthcare (declining to allow single-payer reps a seat at the table), his failure to stop implementation of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and, very critically, his even considering a "prolonged detention" policy.

[cosmicone]

25. I may agree with some of your statements, however,

I am an outsider and not a part of the gay community. I am a strong supporter of equal rights to all, including gays and being a straight guy looking in from the outside, watching the commercials on TV from both sides, I felt that the "No on 8" people had weak arguments which were somewhat cerebral. Elections are driven on emotion and one cannot blame the "Yes on 8" people for pulling every emotional string there was. It is war and one cannot blame the enemy for coming to war with more and better bullets. The "No on 8" people were a) smug, b) blindsided, c) strategically bankrupt and d) not as vociferously passionate as the other side was.

There should have been soft commercials showing smiling gay married couples, civil rights leaders making a pitch, popular attorneys exposing the lies of the other side etc etc

An early outreach with Obama's campaign and joint strategy planning would have been great but not done. I don't think gay vote is taken for granted any more than the No on 8 people took the African American vote for granted.

[imdjh]

28. Some of both perhaps.

I personally don't think that warm and fuzzy pictures of gay couples sells the issue to people who are DISGUSTED by gay people and who see a gay couple (male or female) and think about anal sex and oral sex. Oral sex was taboo in the black community until recently and probably still is with older folks. I have actually heard Reverend Price http://www.crenshawchristiancenter.net/ rant about it on his TV show. In many of the religiously opposed - homosexual = homoSEX.

I think that the way to "reach" the black community is to MAKE THE DEAL. Have a butch black guy all my himself saying,

"Hey, I thought we had a deal. I thought that Democrats support equal rights for everyone. When I voted for Obama I was voting for equal rights for everyone, including gay people. But some of my brothers and sisters seem to have forgotten what the man said, he said "Injustice for one is injustice for all." (or whatever is was he actually said) You don't have to approve of me. Don't vote for Prop 1 because you approve of me. Vote for Prop 1 because it's the right thing to do."

The last time around they tried to be clever. They tried to market. marketing is great but it doesn't sell cars. Marketing does not sell cars. Salesmen sell cars. Marketing gets people to the showroom. That's all it does, and while they are on the way they are unselling themselves. The salesman sells the car. Unfortunately, polling places don't have salesmen. So marketing will not work because there is no one there to close the deal. We need to close the deal before election day.

[nichomachus]

37. They had all of that

Every type of ad you mentioned.

The Yes people did not just "pull emotional strings" -- they lied.

Priests and ministers lied viciously and repeatedly.

In our local media, almost every person interviewed who supported Prop H8 repeated one of the lies:

That churches could be shut down or sued for refusing to perform same-sex marriage

That ministers could be arrested or sued for refusing.

That kindergarten students would be required to learn about gay sex.

Churchgoers voted heavily in favor of Prop H8. They based their vote on lies from people they trusted to tell them the truth.

To counter that, you need first to convince people that the very people they trust are lying to them. Please give me a good strategy for convincing a sincere churchgoer that what they hear from their priest or minister every Sunday is a fucking, baldface lie.

If you can do that, you should apply for a job with EQCA.

[demwing]

46. "You can't educate people out of prejudice" ????

That's so entirely wrong and thickheaded I can't even begin to counter it. Your alternative - tell the Democratic party to go fuck themselves - is supposed to be a more viable alternative?

I get the anger, I get the intense frustration, and I get the need for action - but never confuse activity with accomplishment. You will not get everything you want with a "fuck off" attitude. Do you want real power? Remember that the pen is mightier than the sword. People and numbers can die - ideas and knowledge can live forever.

Change people's hearts and minds, and they'll change their own vote.

[Terran]

26. I read about these failures too, post-election

Particularly, a complete failure to seek out or even accept offered help from ethnic minority organizations who might have helped in the drive to persuade minority voters to vote No. They did indeed blow it, but one hopes they've learned something from all this.

[AntiFascist]

47. I agree, and what motivates the previous leaders of our movement to actually win the fight?

when they can keep raising 10s of $millions every election cycle almost reaching the goal...this is a tremendous cash cow for them. I want to see an excellent ad campaign and I want to see an intelligent plan beforehand.

[SacredCow]

49. Correct, IMHO....

the campaign was heinously botched, and the BIGGEST mistake by far was the sense of false security that it was going to pass.

[PatSeg]

16. And voters were barraged with misleading

fliers and phone calls. People stood on street corners with signs equating Prop 8 to education and free speech.



This is just one of the many fliers I found in my mailbox.

[ronnykmarshall]

17. Yes, tea parties.

You gotta an issue with that.

Good DAY, madam!

[XemaSab]

67. You'll probably never win over the people who go to fundie churches

That 20% of the California population is lost to you.

The battle needs to take place in the middle, and there's a lot of room there for fighting.

[damntexdem]

70. I and others who visited California during the campaign last year noted something:

no discernable 'No on Eight' campaign. I saw a few signs in windows in the gay community in San Diego, nothing anywhere else.

Yes, the other side told lies. We should always expect that. To counter such lies, a campaign needs to occur. Next time, there WILL be one.

[slackmaster]

5. I hope the people promiting this craft the message carefully

It's very easy to lose people by calling them bigots or hatemongers. I think a series of testimonials from likeable people about how their lives have been adversely affected by the inability to marry their partners would be very effective.

I mean tangible things like right of survivorship on property, end-of-life medical situations, contracts, tax benefits, etc.

[nichomachus]

8. That's what they did the last time -- and people said "they blew it" by doing that

[slackmaster]

14. I didn't see enough of it, and too many "No on H8" signs which I believe were counterproductive

We just have to keep working on it.

[ronnykmarshall]

20. They DID?

Where? There weren't shit for ads pointing out ANYTHING the previous poster spoke of.

They didn't counter the misleading ads featuring Obama and Biden as another poster pointed out.

You can defend them all you want, but they BLEW IT. PERIOD.

I have NO trust in these people after the 2008 disaster.

I worked, I donated over $1000 and got zip in return.

The minute after the election they had their hands out wanting MORE money. For what? More vacations?

[XemaSab]

68. I didn't see a single "No on 8" ad

Meanwhile, yes on 8 bought video advertising on the newspaper website. :banghead:

[imdjh]

9. Perhaps speaking to people directly and stop trying to work them.

Straight forward commercials.

"You are entitled to think what you want, everyone is. But what we are asking you to do it to VOTE like an American, for American principles. We aren't all alike. Some of us don't like or support other people, but we all need to stand up for the equal rights of everyone. It's the American way."

[slackmaster]

12. You may be right

I personally know committed couples who have been harmed by the inability to marry. Domestic partnerships do NOT confer the full set of benefits that marriage does.

[imdjh]

6. The strategy will be interesting

In Georgia, Saxby Chambliss had the most votes in the November 2008 election but because no one got 50% of the votes cast there was a run off election on December 2, 2008. In the first election, in which Obama had gotten out the vote, Chambliss got 49.8% of the votes cast. In December he got 57.5% of the vote. Clearly, absent the Obama draw, there was a significant number of Democratic voters who didn't turn out on December 2.

So would it be smarter to go for the 2010 election or wait until 2012? IN 2010 without the draw of the referendum on Obama, many of the Democrats who stabbed us in the back would likely stay home. On the other hand, anything against gay people tends to fire up the Republicans even in an off year. Nothing is simple.

[xxqqqzme]

10. 2010 is an election to get a new

governor. After the recall scam + years of steroid boy - Democrats will turn out in 2010!

[nichomachus]

11. Here is their thinking (from an email I received yesterday)

Returning to the Ballot – 2010 vs. 2012

We listened very carefully to the thousands of you who responded to our membership survey. You provided passionate arguments for both 2010 and 2012, as well as detailed comments about why you prefer one election to another. We read every one of them. In the end, you voted in favor of 2010 by a margin of 69 percent to 24 percent, with 7 percent unsure.

We agree with you. Under the right conditions (which we explain below), we support returning to the ballot in November 2010 for the following reasons (which many of you expressed):

1. Momentum. Never before have either of us experienced a situation where there are so many volunteers who are willing to knock on doors, speak to voters, and take ownership over moving voters to marriage equality. With field organizers on the ground guiding their efforts, we can ensure there will be literally hundreds of thousands of conversations at people’s doors. In our view, this work could be significantly reduced if we wait until 2012. If the election were not to take place for three-plus years, we believe we would have a difficult time maintaining the momentum and engaging those who are ready to sprint to a finish line. The momentum and determination factor may sound soft, but in our experience, it is this work that, more than anything else, will move voters our way. Its importance should not be underestimated.

2. Top of the ticket. All of the leading Democratic contenders for governor and other statewide offices in 2010 strongly support overturning Prop 8. In 2012, we likely will not have a strong supporter of marriage equality heading the ticket of either party.

3. Vying for attention—LGBT national funding priorities. In November 2010, ours would likely be the only major LGBT initiative on the ballot. In 2012, that likely will not be the case. Being on the ballot in different years from other states should greatly increase the funds we can raise. Additionally, in 2012, the LGBT community will once again be counted on to financially support the Obama campaign. This of course is not an issue in 2010.

4. Vying for attention in California. In 2012, the entire legislature will be redistricted by an independent commission resulting in what will likely be the most expensive and contested election for legislative seats in over a decade. As a result, money and volunteers will be more difficult to come by. In addition, in 2010, we could draw from the many Obama volunteers in California who traveled to Nevada and elsewhere last year and who we think we could enlist to work to restore marriage equality.

5. National movement. In addition to the wins to date in New England and Iowa, there’s a strong possibility of prevailing in New York and New Jersey in 2009. These victories will—we believe—translate into increased acceptance and support for marriage equality in California by November 2010.

6. Waiting has costs. In the time between 2010 and 2012, a number of Californians will forever lose the chance to marry the person they love or witness their son or daughter get married, while others will have to wait in a state of limbo to see if they will be able to marry. We should not wait any longer than we have to.

[imdjh]

13. Sounds good, 2010. nt (and thanks for the info)

[efhmc]

36. Great breakdown. Thanks for sharing.

[Javaman]

21. now just a matter of keeping a keen eye on those mormon backers. nt

[nichomachus]

23. Focus on the Family sent a couple of barrels full of money too. n/t

[ejpoeta]

31. are the mormons even in california who are fighting it??? just wondering.

[nichomachus]

38. Pretty sure that this was directed out of the cult headquarters in SLC

[Maat]

27. I am starting to gather signatures for the repeal -

please go to YesOnEquality.com.

I have asked both Courage Campaign and Equality California if this is the repeal they support.

I haven't heard back yet.

[imdjh]

29. How many sigs do we need?

[Maat]

55. 700,000, by August, I believe.

YesOnEquality.com has the answers.

[tabbycat31]

61. can non CA residents sign?

if so I will gladly sign.

[Maat]

62. No, tragically, I have a strict set of rules to follow ...

the signer must be a registered voter in the state of California, and must sign as he or she did on the voter registration form.

x(

[tabbycat31]

65. well if there's anything this east coast girl can do let me know

[Maat]

66. Thanks, you kind person.

:hug:

You know, maybe there is. Think of any and all Californians you know, and persuade them to vote for equality. I wonder, myself, if everyone on this board couldn't go over to Gavin Newsome's website, and sign the petition, because he just said that the real work over the next year and a half will be communicating with everyone in California, and persuading them of the validity of the cause (phone calls, emails).

http://www.gavinnewsom.com/actions/petition

http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4026385

[ejpoeta]

30. my problem with letting the people decide....

there was a guy on cnn who was a pastor i guess... he was saying that the majority of america has voted to protect marriage. now, my thought was that this guy was black. did he not see that the same arguments that he and other anti gay marriage folks were using were the same arguments used to discriminate against blacks with separate but equal and all that. and there was a woman on there saying how she wanted her kids to know that marriage was between one man and one woman because that's where children come from and it would be too confusing. no it wouldn't! wtf!! if there were a majority rule vote on slavery, we would still have slavery. if there were a majority rule vote on women's right to vote, we women would not be voting. funny thing being that women couldn't have voted to give themselves the vote. are people brain dead!! wtf!! these things were done in spite of what the majority of the country wanted. should we have done it by a damned vote!!! grr! i am so mad. i just don't get it.

[efhmc]

35. Don't disagree but that is the governmental setup of Cal.

At least they have a good chance there. Try living in Texas.

[ejpoeta]

39. i feel for you. i think the problem is how we as a country are viewing marriage.

because when you go down to the town and get your license, the ceremony performed for THAT piece of paper is civil. my wedding was performed by a judge and was thus a civil marriage. if one chooses to get married by a priest or minister, then they are doing two ceremonies at once... one civil and one religious. these are two different things. if i have a civil marriage, the church is not forced to recognize it. and if i were to just go to a church and get married without the piece of paper from the state, i would not be legally married as far as the state is concerned. the two are not the same thing. and we as a country need to realize that. providing equality in marriage has nothing to do with religion. no one is forcing religion to participate.

[efhmc]

42. Well said (or written). However, getting religion out of this

civil matter is what is holding us up. The thing is that as a feminist, I object to many religious marriages because of their cancellation of women's rights. However, I would never think it is my duty to try to interfere in those personal religious matters. Why then is it that rw Christians and others are driven to force their religious beliefs on the entire country's legal system?

[ejpoeta]

64. they do it in so many different areas, it's crazy. and if you dare to try to

object or to give them a logical, factual reason why, they just tell you that you are infringing on their rights. NO! no one is infringing on YOUR rights.... just trying to have their own. If you don't believe in something, then don't do it. period. Religion has no place in state or federal things. There are too many examples of what happens when religion is made a national thing. I think that is why the founders didn't want the two mixed together. either government interfering in religious affairs or religious in government.

[efhmc]

32. How will the new prop be worded? I think having the power to

make the prop be worded so it is voted on positively will make a big difference.

[nichomachus]

40. The one I saw is pretty defensive

it includes all this language about how churches won't be required, school kids won't be taught about homosex, blah blah blah.

The problem with that is these were just lies made up by the right wing. You can put all the weasel words you want in to satisfy the other side, but they won't be satisfied. They will just make up more lies, which you will have to counter next time.

The people on the other side of this aren't principled people. They are bullies, liars, and cheats.

[efhmc]

43. Surely there are people who can make a very clear cut

positive statement for people to vote on, the simpler the better. "The State of California grants the right to marry and conveys all its legal privileges and rights to all its citizens regardless of gender." ought to do it.

[nichomachus]

52. No, the haters won't stand for that

They'll nibble away

They'll invent lies

In CA it was that churches will be sued for refusing to perform marriages, etc. That's what the liars in the pulpits used.

When they added language in NH to protect the churches, then the argument was that there was no protection for Christo-fascist Becky at the Piggly Wiggly if she didn't want to mix up the potato salad for a gay wedding. And they derailed it on that basis.

If they include language to protect Becky, then they will just invent some other ridiculous claim about how gay marriage will ruin someone's life.

You're right. It should be simple and straightforward -- but you're up against thieves, bullies, pedophiles, liars, and a bizarre, but wealthy, cult in Salt Lake City. They will tell any lie necessary to advance their political agenda.

[efhmc]

57. Make a campaign of positiveness before this even

happens. Stress the nonreligious, civil rights only aspects of the prop. I happened to be in Cal during the campaign and thought their rw fear based ads with the child coming home telling her mother that when she grows up she would be able to marry a prince or princess hit home with those who really do not understand and were very frightened of this issue. I thought the ads against the prop were rather insipid and too late.

[nichomachus]

60. How do you counter that?

Seriously. How do you convince someone -- in the nicest possible way -- that their priest of minister, who they love and trust, is a lying sack of shit? That is exactly the challenge we face.

[efhmc]

69. You can't but you can show through thoughtful ads and

real debate that one can still hold on to their religious ideas and provide equal rights to those citizens who deserve the rights that all others have. These are two entirely different things. There will be at least some who will see this. if for no other reason that more and more Americans have love ones, friends, favorite teachers, valued professionals, etc. in their lives who are gay and who desire and deserve their rights. I heard Paul Rieckhoff from IAVA say he was a homophobic until he lived and worked with gays in the military. So people can change.

[Dappleganger]

41. How in the hell is it ok for 'majority rule' to validate or invalidate civil rights??

CA is fucked up and that should be changed.

[efhmc]

44. Why can't there be a class action suit against the state of Cal.

by gay people who want to have the equal right to marriage?

[Dappleganger]

48. That would be the right direction...

the court be forced to clarify all of this under the Constitution.

I just hate it when thugs think they can throw their weight around no matter whose rights are being violated.

[efhmc]

50. As long as we have people who feel that they have their

rights and privileges and therefore that is enough for everyone else, we will not have equality. Our task is to show those with open minds and hearts that this is a matter of equality for all and takes no rights from any one else. I think that this will take time. Again I will say to the Californians here, as least you have a chance to change things. There are many states where this very important legal right has no future at all at this time.

[KamaAina]

45. And the minute we do that -- and we will -- they'll come back with Prop H8.1

and son on, and so on, kind of like the little girl holding the oatmeal box with a picture of the little girl holding an oatmeal box... :eyes:

[efhmc]

51. But won't the judges have the passed prop to back up and

uphold what I believe will be a positive decision when the prop is challenged?

[nichomachus]

53. No, the CA constitution is a major clusterfuck

This could go one forever -- until one side or the other gets tired and quits.

[efhmc]

54. That really is a vicious cycle and yet to give up now would be

hopeless and perhaps if enough people can get married in each cycle, it might become a moot point for the future and the rwingers would give up.

[nichomachus]

56. That would be a big help

get it repealed and, in the interim, have 100,000 people get married. That really would help. The only risk is you'd have a lot of people getting married just to make a political point -- I'm not sure whether that's good or bad, as it would play into arguments that we weren't taking marriage seriously.

[efhmc]

58. Aren't they saying that already?

[nichomachus]

59. Oh yeah -- but this would just give them more ammunition.

As I said, I'm not opposing the idea, just wondering whether it would work for us or against us in the long run.

I really think we will wear them down eventually, which is why I'm leery of making all this silly concessions like putting in language that churches don't have to perform gay marriages or that any organist can refuse to play the organ (as it I'd want anyone but a gay man playing the organ at my wedding), or that a waiter can refuse to work a gay wedding banquet, etc etc.

Those are just being put in so Christian nuts can cause all sorts of mischief down the road.