DEMOCRATS | 23 HELD SEATS | ||||||
SOLID D (9) Feinstein* (CA) Carper* (DE) Akaka* (HI) Cardin (MD) Klobuchar (MN) Menendez (NJ) Bingaman* (NM) Whitehouse (RI) Sanders (VT) Kohl* (WI) | LIKELY D (5) Stabenow (MI) Tester (MT) Conrad* (ND) Casey (PA) Cantwell (WA) | LEAN D (3) Lieberman* (CT) Nelson* (FL) McCaskill (MO) Brown (OH) | TOSS UP (3) Nelson* (NE) Webb* (VA) Manchin (WV) | LEAN R (0) | LIKELY R (0) | SOLID R (0) |
REPUBLICANS | 10 HELD SEATS | ||||||
SOLID D (0) | LIKELY D (0) | LEAN D (0) | TOSS UP (2) Brown (MA) Ensign* (NV) | LEAN R (0) | LIKELY R (1) Snowe* (ME) | SOLID R (7) Kyl* (AZ) Lugar (IN) Wicker (MS) Corker (TN) Hutchison* (TX) Hatch* (UT) Barrasso (WY) |
Dave Fleischer is the author of the 509-page Prop 8 Report which was released publicly on Tuesday. I have known Dave for years and he agreed to this on the record interview with MadProfessah.com.MadProfessah: What are the main results or ideas you want people to gain from this report?
Dave Fleischer:
* The No on 8 campaign made a smart decision to invest in research. As a result, for the first time ever, in any campaign, the LGBT community has daily tracking polling that measures increases and decreases in our support as voters were being exposed to the anti-gay opposition campaign. This is far superior to episodic polls taken when voters are considering the question out of context and have not recently been exposed to the vile but effective opposition campaign. The No on 8 tracking polling by Lake allows us to correlate voter movement to significant changes in the political environment including but not limited to strategic decisions made by the competing campaigns. That's why this report is the first report ever to seriously evaluate why we struggle to compete in these campaigns. It provides evidence that allows us to consider and evaluate the wide range of competing hypotheses offered by a wide variety of observers. Up until now, we just had the hypotheses, not the data. Now, we have significant data. With the data, we are able to reject some hypotheses, confirm others, and notice areas where we need more information. We are on our way to learning more about the electoral reality in which we are operating.* Based on the data, we know why we lost. We lost because in the final six weeks, when TV ads from both campaigns saturated the airwaves, almost 700,000 votes switched sides and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. It seems fair to me to conclude that Yes on 8 outcampaigned us in the final six weeks. We went from even to losing in the final six weeks. And it's fair to give Yes on 8 credit for what they accomplished, because we lost the most ground by far among the exact group of voters they targeted: parents.* No on 8 regained some of the ground we lost, but only when we directly rebutted the opposition fear-mongering. "O'Connell" was No on 8's belated rebuttal of the pernicious Yes on 8 ads that exploited and stimulated anti-gay prejudice by making people fear that kids were in danger. The effectiveness of the "O'Connell" ad, while limited, suggests that we can successfully rebut the longstanding lies, at least among some voters. And the fact that it improved the situation compared to how we were doing when we were avoiding the issue makes it clear that avoidance serves us poorly. When the opposition attacks the character of LGBT people, we have to rebut immediately, directly, and clearly.* As we prepare to go back to the ballot, we have to commit ourselves to gaining insight into how to rebut those attacks effectively. We still have so much to learn; after all, does "O'Connell" represent the best we can do? We simply don't yet know. We need to try out, in real world circumstances that simulate the campaign, what rebuttals help us most with most of the voters who are susceptible to the opposition fear-mongering. Luckily, we have a great immediate opportunity to enlarge our learning, when we canvass. From my point of view, when we are canvassing, this leads to a practical imperative: we should talk about kids to as many voters as we can; test different messages to see what works; and consider the canvass an investment in qualitative research, the largest, longest focus group in social science history. My concern is that if we don't do this -- if we don't talk about kids now, when the stakes are low -- we will be tempted once again to avoid the issue in an campaign, when the stakes are so high. Then history will repeat itself, to our detriment.MP: How long did the report take to research and write and who paid for it?
DF: 18 months. Paid for by the LGBT Mentoring Project. No money solicited from nor did any come from CA individuals or organizations or the No on 8 campaign on anyone evaluated in the report.
MP: When do you think we should return to the ballot to overturn Proposition 8?
DF: We should return to the ballot when we have a decent chance to win. So we have homework to do. Should only choose the year when we have finished the homework. That could be 2012, or a different year. To me, what's relevant is: have we done our homework?
MP: One of the key findings is in wrong-way voting. Apparently there were 6% of voters who voted No who opposed marriage equality as opposed to 4% of Yes voters who supported marriage equality. Thus there's a net gain of 2 percentage points for the No side. Can you explain how confident you are of this result?
DF: Very confident. The Lake polling data and our methodology to interpret it are all laid in out detail in the report in a special appendix. [Appendix K]We acknowledge all of the limitations of the data. But here's what we calculate:* approx 1.525 million people were wrong-way voters* of those, 875,000 voted No and opposed same-sex marriage* and 650,000 voted Yes though they favored same-sex marriage* the difference, 225,000 voters, made the margin closer by approx. 450,000 votesFYI, David Binder's polling during the No on 8 campaign, commissioned by the No on 8 campaign, corroborated Lake. In the one poll where he asked questions you could use to gauge wrong-way voting, conducted Sept. 2-4, he found that* 13% of the voters who found same-sex marriage acceptable said they'd vote Yes, and* 19% of the voters who found same-sex marriage unacceptable said they'd vote No.This is a less reliable measure of wrong-way voting than because a) it was further in advance of election day, and some voters self-correct; and b) Binder's question gave three options to respondents, so the middle group is sizeable and there's no way to tell if any of them were likely to wrong-way vote. But Binder's finding here is consistent with the idea that our side was the likely net beneficiary of wrong-way voting.And of course Binder's May 2009 attempt to gauge wrong-way voting is very unlikely to be of any value. Polls are best at detecting wrong-way voting as or before people vote, not afterwards, especially not six months afterwards, when accurate recollection of their confusion is unlikely.You will also enjoy looking at Lewis & Gossett, cited in the Prop 8 Report. Their excellent paper analyzing the Field and PPIC data uses regression analysis to compare the plausibility of four competing hypotheses to explain the failure of the two polls to gauge what was happening. They make a compelling case for wrong-way voting as the most probable explanation.
MP: What do you say to people that your source of daily tracking poll data by Celinda Lake ends 5 days before the election and the election could have been decided in that time frame?
DF: The Lake data is the best data we have on Prop 8, and the best data set our community has ever had on any of these ballot measures. That said, it is imperfect in a variety of ways, including the one you mention. There could have been significant changes in voter opinion in those final days. The Lake data would of necessity not reveal that. However, to the extent that the Binder tracking polling data in the final days tell us anything, they do not suggest massive voter movement or anything other than trivial voter movement. See the charts in the report with Binder data and Lake data side by side and you'll see what I mean. Binder tracked until election day (but he didn't start until much much later than Lake, when most of the big movement had long occurred).
Dave Fleischer, the author of the newly released Prop 8 Report has an op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times called "Behind the numbers of Prop 8" where he summarizes the main results of his voluminous, 500-plus-page document:After the election, a misleading finding from exit polls led many to blame African Americans for the loss. But in our new analysis, it appears that African Americans' views were relatively stable. True, a majority of African Americans opposed same-sex marriage, but that was true at the beginning and at the end of the campaign; few changed their minds in the closing weeks.
The shift, it turns out, was greatest among parents with children under 18 living at home — many of them white Democrats.
The numbers are staggering. In the last six weeks, when both sides saturated the airwaves with television ads, more than 687,000 voters changed their minds and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. More than 500,000 of those, the data suggest, were parents with children under 18 living at home. Because the proposition passed by 600,000 votes, this shift alone more than handed victory to proponents.
[...]
Another misconception was that those who voted for Proposition 8 were motivated by hate. This does not describe most of the 687,000 who changed their minds in the closing weeks. After all, they supported same-sex marriage before the opposition peeled them away. Yes, they turned out to be susceptible to an appeal based on anti-gay prejudice. But they were frightened by misinformation. No on 8's one TV ad that directly responded to the fear-mongering helped assuage some of the fear, but it was too little, too late.
One final false assumption by same-sex marriage supporters was that the election was so close that it will be easy to pass same-sex marriage the next time out.
It's true that the official election results — 52% to 48% — appeared quite close. But the truth is more complicated. The data we analyzed show that the No on 8 campaign benefitted from voter confusion.
Polling suggests that half a million people who opposed same-sex marriage mistakenly voted against the proposition. They were confused by the idea that a "no" vote was actually a vote for gay marriage. This "wrong-way voting" affected both sides, but overwhelmingly it helped the "no" side. Our analysis suggests that the division among California voters on same-sex marriage at the time of Proposition 8 was actually 54% to 46% — not so close. We are actually 1 million votes away from being able to reverse Proposition 8.
As I mentioned earlier, there is a public forum with Dave Fleischer at the LA Gay and Lesbian Center's Village at Ed Gould Plaza next Tuesday August 10 7-9pm.
Finally, the definitive report on what happened during the 2008 proposition 8 ballot measure fight is being told by Dave Fleischer of the LGBT Mentoring Project (former of the National Gay and Lesbian task Force) in a report to be released on Monday August 2nd.
There's a new poll out from the Public Religion Research Institute that confirms that a majority of Californians support marriage equality right now. Additionally, the poll of 3,351 adults (including 350 African Americans and 200 Latino Protestants) asked about the 2008 ballot initiative Proposition 8. A stunning 45% of respondents said that it had no impact on the sate, while 29% said the measure's passage was bad for the state while 22% said it was good for the state. • One-in-four Californians report that their views on rights for gay and lesbian people has become more supportive over the last five years, compared to only 8% who say they have become more opposed. Among religious groups, ethnic minority groups showed slightly more overall movement than white religious groups. Among black Protestants, twice as many report becoming more supportive as report becoming more opposed (27% vs. 13%); among Latino Catholics, that ratio is 3-to-1 (31% more supportive vs. 9% more opposed) over this period.
• If another vote similar to Proposition 8 were held tomorrow, a majority (51%) say they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, compared to 45% who say they would vote to keep same-sex marriage illegal.
• There are major religious groups on both sides of the debate over same-sex marriage in California. Solid majorities of Latino Catholics and white mainline Protestants say they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, while solid majorities of white evangelical Protestants, Latino Protestants, and African American Protestants say they would vote to keep same-sex marriage illegal.
Love Honor Cherish, the primary group behind the Sign for Equality campaign, has sent out a press release announcing that they have failed to collect the requisite 700,000 signatures for the November 2010 ballot.Bizarrely, that website has not been updated since November 2009. MadProfessah was with the diverse coalition of organizations and activists called Prepare to Prevail who said that we need more time to insure that the next time we go to the ballot to restore marriage equality for all Californians we are well-prepared, well-funded and well-positioned for victory. 2010 was too early for all three of those things to be aligned, although it is interesting that public opinion in favor of marriage equality has recently become a majority position in California polls.INITIATIVE TO REPEAL PROP 8 WILL NOT BE ON THE BALLOT IN 2010
All-Volunteer Petition Drive Triggered Conversations Across California
(LOS ANGELES - April 12, 2010)
Love Honor Cherish, which spearheaded an effort to place an initiative on the November 2010 ballot to repeal Proposition 8 and restore equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, announced today that the proponents did not gather the 694,354 signatures necessary to place the proposed initiative on the ballot. The group vowed to work toward the repeal of Prop 8 at the next general election in November 2012.
"This is a heartbreaking moment," said John Henning, Executive Director of Love Honor Cherish. "Despite the dogged efforts of hundreds of volunteers across California, we did not get the signatures we needed within the 150-day window set by the state."
Under California law, it is too late to mount a new effort to repeal Prop 8 in 2010. "Regrettably, Prop 8 will remain as a stain on our constitution until at least 2012, and perhaps later," said Henning. He challenged activists statewide to rededicate themselves and unify behind a 2012 repeal effort.
Prop 8 passed by a margin of 52 to 48 percent. However, polls taken since the vote have shown that a majority of Californians now support the right of same-sex couples to marry, indicating that a new ballot proposition to repeal Prop 8 would be likely to pass in November 2010. In March, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed a 6 percent increase in support for equal marriage rights in just the last year.
The proponents of the repeal initiative sought to seize the momentum unleashed by the passage of Prop 8 and parlay it into a victory at the polls. "This signature campaign was the right thing to do in the wake of Prop 8," said Love Honor Cherish board member Lester Aponte. "We were determined to act affirmatively to achieve equality and we will continue to do that until Prop 8 has been finally repealed. We had hundreds of thousands of conversations with California voters about the right to marry and we know that we have moved hearts and minds. In the process, we have set the foundation for a future repeal effort and brought hope to thousands whose hearts were broken by the passage of Prop 8."
Love Honor Cherish was one of more than 40 groups supporting the repeal of Prop 8 in November 2010, and was part of the Restore Equality 2010 coalition. The campaign utilized a unique web-based social networking tool, located at www.SignForEquality.com, which enabled volunteers to download the petition form, watch training videos and join teams.
Love Honor Cherish is a Los Angeles-based grassroots organization committed to repealing Prop 8 and to developing a new generation of leadership on this issue. Formed in May 2008 to defeat Prop 8, it raised over $500,000 for the No on 8 campaign and mounted its own outreach and media efforts. After the passage of Prop 8, Love Honor Cherish began working immediately to secure its repeal by means of a new ballot proposition. For more information, visit www.LoveHonorCherish.org.
Buried in the recesses of the new poll from The Los Angeles Times/USC is this little nugget of information that for the second time in two weeks indicates that a majority of Californians support marriage equality.
Lambda Legal has issued a statement calling "for more education and time" in order to restore marriage equality in California, says that bring the measure to a vote in 2012 would be "the strongest strategy."It's interesting that Lambda would release their statement now, after the 2010 absolutists are circulating petitions in a vain attempt (in multiple senses of the word!) to collect the 800K-1100K signatures necessary to qualify a Proposition 8 repeal for the statewide general election ballot next year. It seems Lambda may have been influenced by Courage Campaign also finally revealing their "neutral" stance on 2010, a change from the Rick Jacobs-led organization's previously announced gung-ho position in favor of rushing to the ballot next November. MadProfessah posted the news from Facebook posts ove rthe break, but today the Courage Campaign released a press release making it official that they no longer support a 2010 repeal effort.
Lambda Legal Calls for More Education and Time to Restore Marriage Equality in California "While we're within striking distance, we're not there yet."
Los Angeles, November 30, 2009 - Lambda Legal today called for more
outreach, education, research and time to change hearts and minds before
returning to the ballot to reopen marriage to gay and lesbian couples in
California. At least one initiative to restore marriage equality for
same-sex couples is currently circulating that, if it qualifies, would
appear on the November, 2010 ballot, but Lambda Legal believes that putting
this measure to a vote in 2012 is the strongest strategy.
The Courage Campaign, in partnership with Lambda Legal and other leading
groups, has recently concluded the first phase of extensive and
groundbreaking research about public beliefs about marriage and gay people.
It confirms 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.
"Over the past year since Prop 8's passage, we've expanded our community
education in California and have seen the remarkable national progress
exert a positive influence here," said Jennifer C. Pizer, Marriage Project
Director for Lambda Legal. "We've seen our many community groups
collaborating as never before. With the great field operations of the
Courage Campaign, Vote for Equality, Equality California and countless new
activists and allies across the state, the next two years hold great
promise. This work complements the efforts within California's racial and
ethnic minority communities and within the state's diverse communities of
faith. There has never been any doubt that the LGBT community and our
friends and allies will restore marriage equality in California – the only
question has been when. We now believe it's November 2012."
The recently concluded research validated the lasting effect of the work
already being done in the successful Camp Courage program and by Courage
Equality Teams organizing across the state. These grassroots efforts are
building support for marriage equality by training Californians to tap into
their community's resources to start a conversation and connect the
movement for equality to their own lives and their own experiences. This
outreach has surged ahead, fueled by the passion and determination of
countless new activists who have committed to this cause within the past
year.
"We're so close," said Pizer. "Each year, each month, public understanding
shifts a bit more in our direction. As crushing as it was to lose in Maine
this year and in California in 2008, support is building strongly in our
favor: in 2000, Proposition 22 won with 61 percent of the vote;
Proposition 8 passed by a meager margin of only four points. It's
insulting to have to wait and work to regain a core human right that should
never have been taken. As legal advocates, we know minorities should never have to beg the majority for equal rights. Given the decision by the California Supreme Court earlier this year, that's our only path. It's essential that we choose wisely when to return to the ballot – while we're within striking distance, we believe we're not there yet."
“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.To Lambda I say (as I did to Courage Campaign earlier), welcome to the Prepare to Prevail team! Now, let's work together to restore marriage equality in California.
Yesterday's election results are in and it is becoming pretty clear that Maine voters have voted to prevent their state's marriage equality law passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor from going into effect.| Yes | 296289 | 52.79% |
| No | 264970 | 47.21% |
It could well be that Prop 8 won in California because the No on 8 campaign made mistakes. But it could also be that Prop 8 won in California because same-sex marriage has never, ever won at the ballot box in the U.S. It could be that Prop 8 won because same-sex marriage is just a really hard sell right now. I do think time is on our side... but when it comes to the ballot box, it isn't on our side yet.I bolded the key sentences in the excerpt above. Greta Christina is just saying what MadProfessah and others have been saying since July: 2012 is the earliest Californian's should consider returning to the ballot to restore marriage rights to same-sex couples.Two: I hope the people who want to put same-sex marriage back on the ballot in California in 2010 take a long, hard look at whether that's really a good idea, and whether the timing is right.
Same-sex marriage is just really hard to win at the ballot right now. I think we need to accept that. We stand a much better chance of winning in 2012 than we do in 2010. To be blunt about it: Support for same-sex marriage skews, more than with almost any other demographic, according to age. The younger people are, the more likely they are to support it. To be brutally blunt: As more old people die, and as more young people become old enough to vote, the odds skew more and more in our favor. Also, the economy in California truly and profoundly sucks right now, and people just won't be able to donate the kind of money to a political campaign that they did in 2008. And 2012 is a Presidential election year, when voter turnout is always higher -- and high voter turnout almost always means more young voters, and almost always favors liberal candidates and causes.
The most important objective should be a decisive victory, sending a clear message that this state no longer will tolerate separate but not-quite-equal status for families based on sexual orientation. Given the opinion polls, the lack of a coherent campaign strategy and the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, this most likely means an unfortunate wait. A loss at the ballot box or in the nation's high court could set back same-sex marriage for years.This is one of the smarter editorials I have seen since Jordan/Rustin Coalition and other groups released the Prepare to Prevail statement on July 13th calling for the LGBT community to join together to do the hard work necessary to produce a state in which a popular majority supports equal marriage rights for everyone.
Equality California, the organization that led the campaign against Proposition 8, wisely decided to hold off until 2012 before attempting a ballot initiative to repeal the marriage ban. A successful campaign will require $50 million in funding, an extensive outreach program to black and Latino voters, who largely favored the ban, and, most important, an infusion of young voters, the group most sympathetic toward same-sex marriage. Waiting until 2012 gives Equality California a demographic advantage.
But another gay-rights organization, the Courage Campaign, is eager to use the momentum of recent gay-marriage advances in other states and has announced that it will go forward with a 2010 ballot initiative. Both Equality California and some major donors who tried to defeat Proposition 8 have indicated that a 2010 campaign cannot expect their active support.
Though this page will back same-sex marriage no matter what the year, we hope the Courage Campaign will rethink its timing. Gay-rights activists must recognize that their lackluster campaign did little to sway the public, especially considering the misleading ads by gay-marriage opponents. So far, the Courage Campaign has not articulated a sophisticated strategy for changing this. Without other gay-rights groups by its side, its low chances are further weakened.[emphasis added]
It's not as though waiting three years means idly letting injustice prevail. There is plenty to do between now and 2012 -- forging alliances with minority groups, lining up financial support and vetting the best campaign managers. Advocates of same-sex marriage already have a just cause; coupled with campaign smarts and money, they also will have voter support.
Following in the footsteps of the San Francisco Chronicle, the Sacramento Bee is also editorializing in favor of waiting until 2012 to repeal Proposition 8.Here's some good news: It now appears that Californians might be spared another bitter, divisive fight over the definition of marriage next year.The Other Half calls my attention to an editorial in the San Jose Mercury News titled "Waiting til 2012 on gay marriage? Wise move":.
One of the state's leading gay rights groups – Equality California – announced this week that it will not sponsor a ballot measure next year to try to repeal Proposition 8, the initiative voters passed last November banning same-sex marriage in California.
We opposed Proposition 8 and we, too, would like to see it repealed. Like the leaders of the gay rights movement, we believe it is only a matter of time before Californians restore the right of same-sex couples to marry. Younger voters overwhelmingly support this position, and as they become a bigger and bigger part of the electorate, equal marriage rights for gays will become the law of the land.
The question is how and when to ask the voters to reconsider their recent decision. Understandably, gay rights leaders don't want to wait. They see Proposition 8 as an injustice that must be overturned, either at the ballot box or in the federal courts. And they already are pursuing a legal strategy that could eventually bring the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.
But waiting until 2012, as Equality California has decided to do, makes sense. It will give voters more time to reflect on the passage of the gay marriage ban and to see what is happening in other states that are taking the lead on this issue. Most importantly, the pause will allow the gay rights movement to engage in a low-key, grass roots campaign to communicate their message to Californians on a personal level, in a way that cannot be done in the heat of a ballot battle.
Equality California does not speak for the entire movement, and it's still possible that another group will push a ballot initiative in 2010. We hope not. California needs a calm and civil discussion of this issue to prepare for what is sure to be another high- decibel fight when the question is next posed to the voters
Advocates of same-sex marriage can't afford another loss with state voters, and political experts agree that there's a better chance of success in 2012 rather than 2010. Polls show support for the right of gays to marry is growing, and two more years provide advocates with time to build on that trend. In addition, younger voters tend to support marriage equality, and they're more likely to vote in the 2012 presidential election.I wonder when the Los Angeles Times (and other Southern California papers) will weigh in?
[...]
But if waiting another two years means a surer victory, then it's the right thing to do.
It's regrettable that the restoration of marriage rights to gays and lesbians has to be subject to strategic political calculation. But it's also hard to argue with the conclusion reached by Equality California, the state's largest gay-rights group, that the repeal of Proposition 8 would have a better chance in 2012 than in 2010.Openly gay State Senator Mark Leno was the chief sponsor of the marriage equality bill passed by the California Legislature in 2005 and 2007 and vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
Other gay-rights groups plan to push forward with a ballot measure in 2010.
Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, said he agrees with the decision to wait. "There is much work to be done in winning the hearts and minds of California voters," he said, citing polls that showed public opinion has not shifted notably since November.
However, polls show an unmistakable correlation between voters' ages and their support for marriage equality, and each election cycle brings another wave of young voters. The issue also is advanced as Californians who may be instinctively uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage consider the effect of this discrimination among neighbors and colleagues who are denied the rights, responsibilities - and societal reverence - of marriage.
The delay is wise in giving advocates of marriage equality the time - and resources - to educate and motivate voters to remove this vestige of discrimination from the state constitution.
Newsom said today he believes that a 2012 ballot initiative makes sense, considering the fragmented state of the same-sex marriage coalition.It will be interesting to see the 2010 proponents rebut these arguments from same-sex marriage supporters with data and analysis, instead of emotion and "magical thinking."
"In a perfect world we'd go forward next year, but the reality is we're not united," Newsom said.
"Time is definitely our ally," especially with thousands of younger, liberal Californians registering to vote, he said.
If people are curious about what they can do to win marriage back NOW there's a Joint EQCA-JRC-VFE Canvass this Saturday from 10am-3pm in South Los Angeles. We'll be talking to real voters door-to-door about marriage equality. Join us!
"When I first got out here, I thought, 'Of course we’re going back in 2010. We can’t wait.' And I heard people say, 'Well are you sure? Does that make sense?" From funders and more."
Marc paused. "And then I really started listening. I listened carefully. I think the people need to listen carefully to the POC LGBT groups who feel they are being steamrolled. I think they felt steamrolled when we first came out for 2010.
"There’s this feeling that when it’s convenient, that people will listen to what [the POC groups] have to say and when it’s not, they won’t. I think we all have to think about that. Think about what these communities went through after Prop 8 passed and the blaming of POC communities. I think it’s important that people listen to that perspective, that they're thinking 'Our communities got blamed for Prop 8.' And after, people said a lot of work will happen, and now the work hasn’t happened and we’re saying we’re going right back to the ballot. That’s an important perspective to keep into account."
Marc rebuffed the claim that those who support 2012 are wanting to "wait."
"We all want to win back marriage as quickly as humanly possible. The question is, 'Can we get it done by 2010 or not?'"
Marc then addressed the philosophy of returning to the ballot each election year until we win.
"We [EQCA] don’t believe we can go back to the ballot in [2010 and 2012] - it’s one or the other. If we lose, it will be very hard to go back to the ballot before 2014, 2016 or 2018. The thought of spending 150 million dollars three election cycles in a row is totally unrealistic.
"If you keep going back to the ballot over and over, you appear to the movable middle, to the people you need to persuade, as a zealot. Regular people will say, 'Oh my god, they’re back again. Haven’t we already decided this?' And we say, 'We’re fighting. We’re fighting to win.' But we have to think about who needs to come our way and who we need to move."
VOTER CANVASSWe're not waiting until 2012, we're working until 2012!
Saturday, August 15th, 10am-3pm
Holy Faith Episcopal Church
260 N Locust St
Inglewood, CA 90301
RSVP@jordanrustin.org
MEDIA ADVISORY: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEAugust 12, 2009
CONTACT: Vaishalee Raja
PHONE: 916-284-9187 EMAIL: vaishalee@eqca.orgEquality California today Releases Roadmap, Recommended Timeline to
Restore Freedom to Marry for Same-Sex CouplesWhat: After many conversations with community members across the state, coalition partners, donors and political strategists, Equality California (EQCA) will hold a teleconference to discuss its “Winning Back Marriage Equality in California: Analysis and Roadmap,” with a recommended timeline on returning to the ballot to restore the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. EQCA will also discuss the achievements of its Win Marriage Back: Make it Real! effort, an on-the-ground, statewide organizing campaign launched almost 100 days ago.
When: Wed., August 12th at 11 a.m. PDT; 2 p.m. ET
Who: Geoff Kors, Executive Director; Marc Solomon, Marriage Director; Andrea Shorter, Deputy Director of Marriage and Coalitions; Amy Mello, Field Director
How: Dial-in (866) 213 - 7648; Note: participants must also provide the following conference ID number: 24283655. Lines are limited and will open at 10:45 a.m. PDT.
This call is for reporters and bloggers.
Equality California will continue soliciting feedback from community members and will hold a virtual town hall via livestream moderated by Bay Area Reporter Editor Cynthia Laird on Thursday, August 13, from 5 to 7 p.m. PDT. To join the town hall, visit www.livestream.com/
equalitycalifornia at that time.Equality California (EQCA) is the largest statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender-rights advocacy organization in California. In the past decade, EQCA has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited legal protections for LGBT individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil-rights protections in the nation. EQCA has passed over 50 pieces of legislation and continues to advance equality through legislative advocacy, public education and community empowerment. www.eqca.org
In the aftermath of the 2008 Proposition 8 campaign, it became apparent that much, if not all, of the winning margin came from African American and Latino voters who turned out in extra-heavy numbers to support Obama's presidential bid, and that has generated nearly a year of acrimonious debate within the gay rights community and black and Latino political circles.While it is true that if only White voters had voted in November 2008, Proposition 8 would have failed. That does not mean that people of color are responsible for the passage of the measure. When you control for the rate at which different groups go to church (i.e. once a week, once a month, almost never) Black, Latino and Asians have approximately equivalent rates of support for marriage equality as white voters.
Ron Buckmire, a mathematics professor at Occidental College who describes himself in his Internet blog as a "black, gay, Caribbean, liberal, progressive, moderate, fit, married, college-educated, NPR-Listening, tennis-playing feminist atheist," has emerged as one of the leading advocates for waiting.
"As I like to say: Do the math," Buckmire said in one interview. "It's going to take a long time. … I haven't seen a plan to win yet. I've seen a plan to get on the ballot. But not to win."
One question that gay rights advocates are trying to answer is whether the 2010 election, an off-year for presidential politics but one in which California will elect a new governor, would be more or less conducive to same-sex marriage.
Voter turnout would be lower than in 2008, most likely, and that probably would mean a somewhat whiter and older set of voters, which also could mean a lower turnout of those pro-Proposition 8 black and Latino voters.
Garofioli goes on to intimate that a plan to win will be released on Monday. Presumably, he is referring to Equality California's Marc Solomon's much anticipated memo on exactly how and when the state's largest LGBT organization feels Proposition 8 should be repealed.Leave it to a math professor -- like Ron Buckmire, associate math prof at Occidental College -- to break down some raw numbers to illustrate the task facing folks who want to put gay marriage on the ballot in November 2010.
The Mad Professah -- as herefers to himself in his blog-- has another gig as board prez of the Jordan/Rustin Coaltion, a African-American gay rights group in LA. As we've told you before, it's one ofseveral LGBT coalitions of colorthat says there hasn't been enough outreach done, and wants to hold off on rushing to the ballot (like in 2010) until more hearts and minds can be changed. The Professah knows how hard that can be. He's been canvassing in LA for a while (and involved in other gay rights campaigns since the early 1990s).
In July, he was part of a group that had its most successful day ever in "moving" voters in a middle-class black neighborhood in LA -- that is getting them to change their mind just a bit about the issue. They moved 50 voters -- after knocking on 1,200 doors.
"As I like to say: Do the math," Buckmire told us. "It's going to take a long time." While he's happy that some outreach is starting, "I haven't seen a plan to win yet. I've seen a plan to get on the ballot. But not to win."
A blog for the San Francisco Chronicle came out fairly quickly after Saturday's statewide LGBT "Leadership Summit" in San Bernardino, California with the results of a non-binding straw poll about when the LGBT community wants to return to the ballot to repeal Prop 8: "93 people voted to go in 2010, 49 in 2012 and 20 undecided."
I was there. The count's accurate but it's far from the whole story. What really happened was that a vote was taken around 5:00pm - an hour after the meeting was supposed to end and a good number of people had left - and 93 people voted for 2010 and 69 opposed that idea. The count was justified as being taken among those who cared enough to show up in San Bernardino in late July ("sweltering" is one word that comes to mind) and stay until the bitter end.
Let's look at the demographics.
At its height, the over-heated church hall was filled with about 250 grassroots activists, mostly from the San Diego and Los Angeles area - a point loudly noted by leaders from Northern California who were receiving text messages from friends watching the Unite the Fight streaming video. Their online votes on a question just prior to the straw poll about how to best create a campaign structure had been discounted.
Additionally, before the two votes, when the room was about at 200 people, I counted the number of people of color and came up with 37. I asked both a grassroots activist and an "institutional" leader - stretching the number to 40 in case I missed a couple of people in the way back or outside - and they both independently concurred.
So while the straw poll accurately reflects the wishes of that late audience, the 162 people whose votes were counted do not necessarily reflect the wishes of the California LGBT community.
