Subscribe to Breaking NewsRuby-Sachs: Should the Prop 8 Vote be Delayed?
Equality California announced yesterday that they intend to wait until 2012 to put a reversal of Proposition 8’s marriage ban on the ballot. It’s a move spurred by, what they call, little shift in polling numbers. As well, younger voter turnout in a presidential election year gives an extra edge to gay marriage.
The funny thing is, Courage Campaign isn’t biting. They, with the help of Obama’s Steve Hildebrand, are looking to put Prop8 up to a vote in 2010.
That leaves the California LGBT community with a choice: hit now and show no weakness, or take the safe route and rely on the numbers. It is likely, and Equality California agrees with me, that putting Prop 8 to a vote in both elections will only garner voter disapproval.
First and foremost, I am interested in hearing what you have to say about this question. It’s rare, I know, that a problem arises where coming up with an opinion proves difficult for me, but this is certainly it.
That said, I think that California should wait.
The sign of weakness is damaging, yes, but risking a move before the proper funds have been raised and the ground work completed would be disastrous. Equality California is taking the safe route, for sure. But we all have to adjust our thinking to acknowledge that the west coast might not be the civil rights frontier we had hoped for.
Instead, let’s take the legal marriage battle on the road, lobby congress for a repeal of discriminatory legislation and let Cali catch up in due course.
Once that state takes a look around and realizes that it’s policies on LGBT rights are archaic, to say the least, it might just shape up and start acting like the bastion of freedom it once could legitimately claim to be.
The message that delaying the vote sends is that marriage equality isn’t really important after all. In California, there is a strong domestic partner law. The proponents of Proposition 8 said that they were not taking any rights away from gay couples. If we don’t repeal Prop 8 now, then we are saying they are right.
To delay is to give a huge gift to our enemies. Believe me, they will use the money that they don’t have to spend in California in Maine, in Washington state, and in Iowa to defeat us. They will also use it to defeat our efforts to pass ENDA, repeal DOMA, and end DADT.
We are much more likely to prevail in California in 2010 than we will in 2012. In 2010, we will have several candidates for Governor in favor of same-sex marriage. They will have to campaign on our behalf. In 2012, we will have Obama leading the democratic party, and we know his position on same-sex marriage. Our enemies will use robo-calls with his voice saying that he opposes same-sex marriage. He will inspire a huge turnout of minorities who will vote against us.
Personally I think that hitting on a Presidential election is a good idea. I don’t buy the argument that waiting is “admitting that the pro prop 8 people were right”. Legal changes are a process and people know that. If we start the education and PR campaign now with 2012 in our sights then we aren’t admitting defeat to anyone, and the anti-gay marriage group isn’t going to let us sit here and get our message out without a counter message, so won’t be saving them any money by waiting.
All of that said, we NEED to start NOW with 2012 in our sights. Waiting till 2010 is over to start on a 2012 campaign is a terrible terrible idea. The next two years need to be about education and outreach and really finding out what works, instead of floundering around without a good connection to the heart of middle America. Our campaign during the Prop 8 battle betrayed that like it or not we don’t think like middle America. We need to really figure out what makes them tick, because our opponents have that knowledge and they use it to great effect.
I believe that the question of Gay Marriage should come up for a vote in California (and the other 49 states) in 2010, 2012, and every other year until it is passed as law all across the country. There is no sense to patiently waiting for something that might never come. The fight needs to be a constant stream of an ever growing and never ceasing legal battles across the country and in our own communities. We LGBT citizens have been too complacent and too easy to pacify with small victories when the ultimate issue is one of basic fairness and equal CIVIL rights. The day we as a collective group begin to make some serious noise is when we will no longer be ignored. Can anyone say, “no taxation without representation”?
Of course, we need a strong grassroots campaign, and the grassroots are saying to go now. If we wait, the enthusiasm will wane, and the 49% of Californians who favor same-sex marriage will decide it can’t be an important issue if we aren’t even fighting for it.
In the New York Times, today, the leaders of the opposition expressed great relief that they may not have to run a campaign in California in 2010. I hope that they are well mannered enough to send “Thank you” cards to Geoff Kors and Marc Solomon.
It is ironic that ECQA, who botched the 2008 campaign, now expects us to trust them on their judgment that 2012 will be a better time than 2010. They simply lack courage and are much too comfortable with their big salaries. As far as I am concerned, my membership in ECQA is over. We need real leadership. Oh to have a Harvey Milk in our midst again.
I think it’s important that this issue be on the ballot every year until same-sex marriage becomes legal. This vote goes directly to the humanity of gay and lesbian people, and must not be put off for convenience or cash. It’s not about that. It’s about justice and morality. If we truly feel we have that on our side, then we must make the attempt, even if we believe we’ll lose. Make Californians decide if we’re going to lose. Don’t do it for them.
jay and randy. thanks for saying what i wanted to say but couldn’t come up with the words.
I really don’t know how I feel. Both sides make a pretty good case. It would be a shame if waited and lost momentum, but it would also be a shame if we were under funded and lost again, taking away from funds we could have collected in 2012.
I personally believe we should aim for a return to the ballot in 2012, with a continued focus on education, voter identification and community outreach. A return every two years until we win is unlikely due to the enormous expense (approx. $50 million each time). 2010 seems rushed and more emotionally charged than strategic. We are talking politics and running a winning campaign. Once the campaign starts, we lose the freedom to have open dialogue with our neighbors. It becomes all about sticking to the message.
I say let’s take this opportunity and hold the conversations that obviously still need to be had so California’s voters support us in the majority next time we go back to the ballot. 2012 is really not very far away. We have time now to truly organize our grassroots efforts more efficiently and effectively, conduct focus groups in diverse communities, canvass and build support while more millennium voters come of age.
I read one comment about the grassroots losing enthusiasm if we don’t move forward in 2010. That’s just not true. I’ve been a grassroots activist for marriage equality since 1993 and I’m still around, still ready to charge and certainly not going away until we’ve won in California. My enthusiasm is stronger than ever. There are many more seasoned grassroots activists like myself and we’re in it for the long haul. Plus, there’s an awful lot of work to do between now and 2012, enough that should keep any grassroots activist excited and very busy.
I also believe that if the 2010 groups would agree to a 2012 date, it would be a very unifying and electrifying move that would give us the needed fuel for an extended campaign and an eventual win.
Non-Presidential elections usually see large Republican turn-outs and minimal Democratic involvement. Campaign until the message is a given to the average CA voter, win a few more states across the country, and go for 2012. Safe is better. There won’t be any momentum lost because the number of marriages will be piling up across New England – and hopefully there may be a few more shockers like Iowa.
That said, I want to know why the article states running both elections will ‘garner voter disapproval’ – not sure why that’s the case…
ScottNH: the demographics are better for us in 2010 than in 2012. In 2010, the Democratic candidate for Governor (probably either Gavin Newson or Jerry Brown) are on record in favor of same-sex marriage–indeed, on record in believing that it is unconstitutional for us not to have marriage equality. In 2012, Obama will be at the head of the ticket, and he is on record as opposing same-sex marriage. You can believe that our enemies will be quoting him in every other sentence. He will attract a large number of conservative Black and Latino voters to the polls. They will vote against same-sex marriage. (BTW, this is not to blame African Americans and Latinos for the loss in 2008–it is only to say that we don’t do as well among church-going minorities as we do among other groups.) It is folly to wait until 2012.
Ms. Ruby-Sachs:
First let me write that I have much admired your work (thoughts) for a long time now. However, Re: your article above, I’m very worried! While I very much agree with you that we Gays must vigorously fund raise and lay a solid ground “work”, This increasing DIVISION in our very own community–citizens–lawyers–lawsuits–amendments–etc., is very disturbing, and has the very real potential to set our Civil Rights movement BACK for DECADES. We must all come totally out and on a one on one basis show our friends, neightbors, family and patients that we Gay people are truly kind, compassionate, loving, tax paying citizens who are the last minority in this wonderful country of ours to NOT have achieved our full Civil rights!
I’m reminded of Mahatma Gandhi who once said, “First they laugh at you—then they HURT you—and then, we WIN.”
Respectfully
Proposition 8 isn’t the problem in California or the rest of the nation. The problem is lobbying, and the fact that GLBT groups don’t have a whole lot of that going on their/our behalf. So far, GLBT groups have stayed on the sidelines, refusing to participate in “politics as usual.” This is noble on some level, but also desperately stupid. Why should any political person, group, or party listen to any other person, group, or party? Money. Bottom-line, it’s all about money. And until GLBT groups have enough money AND the huevos to use it like the weapon it is, there will be no legal progress.
Additionally, we as GLBT people need to stop portraying the marriage debate (among other things) as being strictly or primarily emotional. Inequality is emotional ONLY at its very best. Legal equality is a matter of utility; when we are prevented from giving our best to society, the whole of society suffers. We need to demonstrate that notion instead of relying upon emotional plea-bargains and anecdotal tales of woe to illustrate our position.
As for the development of an opinion, Ms. Ruby-Sachs, only education will really help you. The arguments for both sides of this issue are very relevant; choosing a side doesn’t have to be the end of the discussion, nor SHOULD it be. What may help you determine your position best of all is to ask yourself this question: what does marriage equality mean to me? What do you hope to achieve for yourself or for your brethren by fighting for legal marriage equality? Is it about rights to share benefits, tax breaks or credits, and visit one another in the hospital? Or is it the desire to stand before the country and say, “Yes, I am.”? Is your marriage a showcase for the rest of society, or is it a glorious challenge for yourself and your spouse? Either way, who is anyone to pass judgement? But the questions are viable and should be answered by all of us, especially those who are demanding legal marriage equality.