In the wake of Maine we have some serious thinking to do

[dsc]

Maine was a perfect storm for us. Well run campaign, secular electorate, marriage equality passed legislatively, and a supportive governor. This wasn't going to be California redux. Yet, at the end of the day, it was California redux. Actually, take that back, it was a worse result than California. We lost, with our opponents using the very same argument, that gay marriage would lead to school children being exposed to gay life. As a gay teacher, I have to say that scares me more than a little. I am, apparently, their worst nightmare. I also admit, I don't see the rebuttal that will work. Clearly parents are worried that their kids might become gay if culture is gay friendly enough. Equally clearly, we don't want to throw our kids under the bus.

We can't win in the near future. California in 2010 is a pipe dream. It was a dubious idea at best before Maine. Now it is beyond foolhardy. I don't know, other than working on the federal level, what the answer is. But we better find one, and quickly.

[msongs]

1. this issue should be fought on grounds of freedom FROM religion, because it is religion that

is the reason it is opposed. opposition is religion based. therefore it should be fought as imposition of religion onto a state/secular procedure, i.e., license to marry granted by the secular state.

instead it is framed as a "please like us because we are almost like you" issue. Won't fly on that concept for years yet.

Msongs

[paulsby]

14. i don't think that's the direction we should take

there is no "imposition" of religion if people vote their values, whether or not those values are informed by religion

it wasn't true of martin luther king, excuse me, the REVEREND martin luther king, when he fought for social justice, and it isn't true of anti-gay voters who vote against marriage equality.

many of the people who fought slavery via the underground railroad etc. were ALSO anti-slavery BECAUSE of their religious faith

iow, voters voting their values (religious OR not)is not an establishment of religion.

it's not going to help the cause to go with this angle, imo

[bluestateguy]

2. California 2010 might be doable

If black and Hispanic turnout is lighter than in 2008, our side may have a chance. The fact of the matter is that blacks and Hispanics voted for 8 in 2008, and they may turnout in lighter numbers in 2010. In 2012, all of those voters will be back. On the other hand, 3 years is more time for more old fart homophobes to die off, and let Generational Time work its magic.

[dsc]

3. It will be a way older electorate and that will more than counter balance the fact that

blacks and hispanics will be less likely to vote.

[bluestateguy]

4. Maybe you're right

Still, I'd like to see our side try in New York (do they do referenda in NY?) or Hawaii, or some other state where we know we can win in 2010. Momentum is important.

[noiretextatique]

25. prop 8 passage was generational, not racial

which bodes well for 2008...if younger voters turnout. you need to get your facts straight.

[Gman2]

5. Here's what I would do. Go for equal protection, under the law, called whatever, then

after a time, having enjoyed ALL luxuries and protections, fight to rename it. But that's me, and I'm not gay.

[Ian David]

6. We need a big flu pandeminc to kill-off the old people. n/t

[Duncan Grant]

7. I think I'm more of an ACT UP kind of fag. Let's crawl up their nostrils and grab their brain stem.

Eventually LGBT people will abandon this "tea and cucumber sandwich diplomacy" and get something substantive done.

Fight back. Fight back. Fight back.

[MuseRider]

9. Love it! n/t

[mitchtv]

16. fairness is the issue, not voting on my rights

tactics should be the kind that sets the "it makes us look bad" crowd in a tizzy.. NO MORE ELECTIONS; action

[BR_Parkway]

23. The kids are already learning it - maybe we should have kiss ins

in front of schools now, then they might wish that they'd have allowed us to be boringly married at home. Actually, make that the churches, not the schools

Seriously, I can't believe that no one was pointing out that marriage in Mass hasn't hurt a soul - how many years after we were all told that everything bad would happen?

Kids already know classmates with 2 moms or 2 dads, they have glbt friends, they have the freaking internet.

[pnwmom]

8. I don't know what the right interim goal should be -- and I am in complete support

of those who think it should be marriage, now -- period.

But the vote in Washington state was the first time ever that voters (rather than legislators or judges) agreed to approve rights equivalent to marriage (at the state level) for civil partnerships. To those to whom the symbolism of the word marriage is critical, then this won't help. But to those who are more interested in the legal rights, this will go a long way in Washington. The next step, though, would be to secure the same thing via Federal statute.

One wrinkle here is that the Washington bill also affected a significant number of senior citizens, who didn't want Federally recognized marriage. The support of seniors and their families might have helped push the vote over the top. But, because of that vote, gay people in our state will now have state rights equivalent to marriage, along with other people in civil partnerships.

[dsc]

10. Your second paragraph is the problem

The one and only reason that vote went in our favor was that elderly people take advantage of those partnerships and not only have no interest in federal recognition but have interest in seeing no federal recognition. That is a recipe for those not working at all.

[Unvanguard]

11. The thing is, we can afford to lose every popular referendum for a few years.

Very few states have constitutional amendment provisions as stupid as California's, so it'll be hard to reverse court decisions, and most states, especially the Northeastern states where marriage equality seems most likely, don't have "people's veto"-like provisions.

Even despite Question 1, we have more than twice the number of states with marriage equality we had last year. They blocked Maine--barely--but they failed to block Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa. If New Jersey, New York, and DC pass marriage equality--and it's looking quite possible that all three will--they probably won't be able to stop it there either.

It's not pleasant to watch elections go against us; it's not pleasant to see us stripped of rights we've fought hard for. But we're getting in better and better shape every year: for all their rhetoric about never losing at the ballot box, we're still the ones who are winning overall. Let's not forget that.

Edit: For what it's worth, I've always thought 2012 was a better option for California.

[David Zephyr]

12. Please give up on these ballot measures for our civil rights. They are unconstitutional.

The re-thinking is already being done by two sterling heterosexual lawyers: David Boies and Ted Olsen. Both are well respected by the Supreme Court of the United States. One is a liberal and the other is a conservative. These two men are going to take our cause to the SCOTUS and they will be victorious, dsc.

We should not participate, invest our precious funds and energy in voting on our own civil rights. It's an endorsement of the crime itself.

Take a breath.

This is going to work our way in the Supreme Court.

The 14th Amendment will be found to cover equal protection under the law for gay marriages just as for straight marriages.

Meanwhile, we should gladly take the huge incremental step of civil unions with every protection included with the exception of the word "marriage". I say this not because I am compromising, but because there are couples who need those benefits today, now, this moment.

We will be victorious.

And keep your eye on David Boies and Ted Olsen. They are going to deliver for us. Two old straight guys securing it from the SCOTUS.

Count on it. It's gonna happen.

[Unvanguard]

13. ...or it could fail, and leave us even worse off than before because of stare decisis.

Which is why the organizations that usually sponsor these things, the ones that got us our previous court victories, oppose the tactic of federal lawsuits on marriage equality.

We can't stop Olson and Boies now. But we'd better prepare for at least the non-negligible possibility that they fail, and leave marriage equality dependent on state-by-state efforts for the foreseeable future.

[David Zephyr]

20. Of course it can fail, but...

There are four primary avenues open to us to win full "marriage" recognition:

1.) Ballot measures. Voting initiatives state by state (from either our side or the others). I see this as the least effective manner because not only do we lose, we spend millions of our community's precious funds and time and we empower straights with the prerogative to choose in granting us equal rights.

2.) State Courts. This is a great avenue because it continues to hammer the "equal protection under the law" drum. And we win these, although a few have been over turned in some cases by #1.

3.) Federal Court Appeal to the SCOTUS. A direct federal appeal based squarely (and correctly) on the 14th Amendment all the way to the Supreme Court. Even Scalia, "that old homophobe" as Barney Frank called him, will be hard pressed to find an exception to the Equal Protection Clause, to carve out a single group of Americans who do not fall under that constitutional umbrella. (I don't hold hope for Scalia or Thomas, but Anthony Kennedy may see things our way, and one of Bush's latter day appointments might surprise us, too. We only need one extra vote there). I do believe that we will be victorious. It is the correct argument. This is what Boies and Olsen are doing. They are truly committed to this from a legal point of view. You correctly point out that a group of GLBT advocate opposed Boies and Olsen and tried to stop their case. However, as I'm sure you know, once the federal case was allowed to go forward, these same gay attorneys pressed to be included in the legal process, too. Many of our GLBT sisters and brothers, like me are relieved that the current judge ruled them out. It's hard to have someone who was against your strategy suddenly want to join you and guide the strategy. There is open debate on this within our community (as there should be), but the facts are: so far Boies and Olsen have had a string of small victories in moving our cause forward. And we should cheer them.

4.) Incremental marriage recognition through Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships through the State Legislatures and municipalities. We should not sneeze at the statutory victories our community has already secured under the umbrella of Civil Unions after years of struggle. Of course, depending on the state, that 'menu of rights' has a range of from full rights (with the exception of the word "marriage") to, yes, even weaker couple protections. But our sisters and brothers won those nearly block by block, city by city, state by state, corporation by corporation, and we shouldn't dismiss what we've accomplished thus far. We have GLBT heroes all across this nation who worked hard to secure even those rights.

To many, this is a cop-out, a sell out, but to others who need even those rights now, it is not just an academic issue. The right to have your partner's healthcare insurance, the right to see them in a hospital, the right to ride with them in an ambulance, and all that both domestic partnership and civil union laws provide us are needed by many right now, today. Poll after poll, and yes, dare I even say it, now even a ballot measure (Washington State) show that most Americans are ready to move this far. In our determined struggle for full marriage equality, we should keep in mind those in our community who need those obtainable rights now, today. Many in our community say "let them keep the word 'marriage', just give us the rights". While I don't agree with that, there are so many that need even those rights now. And we shouldn't mock those in our community that worked hard, sacrificed to achieve those domestic partnership and civil union rights. They did what they could and we should honor them as we still move forward.

Unvanguard, of all of four above, I really only have trouble with the first avenue because when we participate in ballot measures that pose the question of yes/no for our civil rights, we signal that it is cool to vote on a minority's civil rights. It sets a terrible legal precedent (which is also a contention of Boies and Olsen) for other minorities. I don't like heterosexuals voting on my civil rights. That is the core of the problem It violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

That said, we will get there. And we are all on the same side even though sometimes we differ on our course there.

But we will be victorious.

[Unvanguard]

21. I agree with you mostly, but I think I'm broadly less optimistic about the courts.

The ideal outcome here without question is Olson/Boies getting from SCOTUS an opinion bringing about marriage equality nationwide. But--while I desperately hope for such an outcome, and despite my reservations about their lawsuit my heart is with them all the way--I honestly don't see it happening. We'll get the liberals, in all probability, but there are only four of them, and Justice Kennedy's past gay rights backing dealt with issues substantially less controversial than marriage equality. Only a handful of states still had (mostly unenforced) sodomy laws when Lawrence v. Texas struck them down, and the Colorado amendment (one state, one idiotic constitutional amendment) struck down in Romer v. Evans was a pretty clear-cut equal protection case that didn't arouse the kind of passion opposition to marriage equality does. Whether he will break with his judicial conservatism so far as to alter the marriage laws of a huge majority of the states, against the present orientation of public opinion and in the face of what is likely to be very heavy public outcry, is something I'm just not confident betting on. There are ways out: some of them are silly ("Gays can always marry someone of the opposite sex"), but they're there.

As for state courts, the record has been too mixed to have confidence. We've won several, but we've lost several too, and because courts abide by precedent, once we've lost we can't go back and try again (not for a long time, anyway). California managed to get around its state court, too, and while most states have saner amendment provisions than California's, enough very conservative states already have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage that the judicial route isn't feasible there either.

I guess what I'm driving at is that while you're certainly right that it's best if we can win on equal protection and "fundamental right to marry" grounds, there's an unfortunately very significant possibility that we won't get "best": and if we want equal rights, as you and I certainly do, we're going to have to go the legislative route to legalize marriage equality and get rid of amendments banning it, which means tangling with a lot of initiatives.

[David Zephyr]

24. Thank you for your informed and thoughtful comments.

It's a joy to meet people here who have such knowledge of the scope of our GLBT current landscape, our history thus far and with such good perspective that is more than just emotionalism. There is a lot at stake for all of us. :hi:

[struggle4progress]

15. Myth Busting Why Prop 8 Passed in California

... “But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

“Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin” ...

“Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

“At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy” ...

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/11/myth_busting_wh.html

Racial interpretations of Proposition 8 are likely to be counter-productive. The real issue may be youthful turn-out -- and minority youth may be more alienated from the ballot box than youth-at-large. A general effort to register and turn-out youth-at-large, including minority youth, may actually be helpful

[dsc]

17. I fail to see how your post is relevent to mine

I listed several differences not one of which even remotely suggested your post.

[struggle4progress]

18. I should have posted directly in response to bluestateguy's "let's blame minorities!" post above

[ShadowLiberal]

19. The problem is the bigots have the advantage of the fear of the unknown in their ads

I said this in another thread, but part of why the bigots were successful at getting their base out is because it's easier to motivate people with fear of the unknown, with the unknown being what will happen if gay marriage is legalized. It's much more difficult, probably almost impossible in this case, for us to make an ad just as convincing that tries to make people fear the known, or how things are now with marriage.

Also, I don't think the bigot's attack ads on marriage were helpful at getting the few swing voters on this on their side, because in order to convince people to change their mind and take your opinion on an issue you have to be persuasive, and seem rationale, and fear ads like that aren't persuasive.

This is also part of why the national trend on gay marriage is in our favor, with support for it passing the 40% mark in the last year or two. We're the side that's convincing others to change their minds on this issue and take our opinion, while the bigots are just using scare tactics to try to motivate their supporters on the issue. Emotional arguments like theirs that have no rational basis aren't too good at convincing people to change their minds and take their opinion on the issue.

So we'll win in the long run with our strategy, but it'll take time, at the current rate of growth in gay marriage we should get support for it tied with or higher then opposition to gay marriage within 4 to 8 years, probably closer to 4.

[Cherchez la Femme]

22. First thing I'd do is go after tax-exempt status

of religious institutions who play politics.

Then we'll see how states really feel without the well-funded propaganda infiltrated in from another state.