Backers of Gay Marriage Rethink California Push

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2009 12:09 PM GMT
    A lot of the gay blogs have been pushing for the movement to try and repeal California's proposition 8 in 2010. I've been against trying so soon because I think we will lose. This article from today's NY Times outlines my thinking, but I'm curious as to what my fellow RJers think. (Caveat: I think it should be repealed, it's the timing I have an issue with.)

    QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HERELOS ANGELES — Discouraged by stubborn poll numbers and pessimistic political consultants, major financial backers of same-sex marriage are cautioning gay rights groups to delay a campaign to overturn California’s ban on such unions until at least 2012.

    Earlier this year, many supporters of same-sex marriage seemed eager to mount a 2010 campaign to overturn Proposition 8, which was passed by California voters in November and defined marriage as “between a man and a woman.”

    But the timing of another campaign has since been questioned by several of the movement’s big donors, including David Bohnett, a millionaire philanthropist and technology entrepreneur who gave more than $1 million to the unsuccessful campaign to defeat Proposition 8.

    “In conversations with a number of my fellow major No on 8 donors,” Mr. Bohnett said in an e-mail message, “I find that they share my sentiment: namely, that we will step up to the plate — with resources and talent — when the time is right.”

    “The only thing worse than losing in 2008,” he added, “would be to lose again in 2010.”


    Rest of the article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/us/27gay.html?tntemail0=y&_r=2&emc=tnt&pagewanted=print
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2009 7:17 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidA lot of the gay blogs have been pushing for the movement to try and repeal California's proposition 8 in 2010. I've been against trying so soon because I think we will lose. This article from today's NY Times outlines my thinking, but I'm curious as to what my fellow RJers think. (Caveat: I think it should be repealed, it's the timing I have an issue with.)


    For two reasons I believe Prop 8 can be repealed in 2010.

    Reason #1: Age.
    As the old die, the overwhelmingly open-minded and pro-gay-marriage youth turn 18 (statistics show youth are much more supportive for gay marriage than the elders). Therefore, California will inevitably be for gay marriage. It is only a matter of time. And between 2008 and 2010, you have 2 years worth of youth turning 18 and 2 years worth of old people dieing off.

    Reason #2: Statistics (and possibly related to reason #1).
    In 2000, 60% of Californians were opposed to gay marriage in their vote.
    In 2008, 52% of Californians were opposed to gay marriage in their vote.
    Following this trend, there's a 1% decline in opposing gay marriage each year. Accordingly, by 2010 it should be a 50/50 split...and I'm hoping it will lean for pro-gay marriage.

    Lastly, pessimism about repealing Prop 8 is only going to start a downwards spiral and turn into a huge self-fulfilling prophecy.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Jul 27, 2009 9:38 PM GMT
    I think the option should be up every cycle until it's gone. It's a matter of principle to show how stupid it is. Then when it's done getting taken down. The opposition will probably do the same, and try to have it up again - and then the reality of why such a right should not be up to a vote will be made so clear that even the simpleton closed minded people will see how stupid it is to have something like marriage be a voter issue from election cycle to election cycle.

    I don't think it would make it worse by losing again and again.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Jul 27, 2009 9:46 PM GMT
    I'd like to see a proposition up that prohibited religious officials from being recognized as officiates of the state in regard to civil marriages.

    Or one that modified state recognized marriages of straights to force the idea that they must have a common place of residence as domestic partnerships are required.

    Or that one that prohibited straights over 60-62 (i forget the exact age requirement) from being allowed to have domestic partnerships. People younger than it that are straight are not allowed to have domestic partnerships like gays right now.

    Actually, I would like to see the restriction that only same-sex couples are allowed to have domestic partnerships removed. Allow straight couples to have domestic partnerships too. I think that will make domestic partnerships look bad for what it is then, a form of discrimination.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 28, 2009 1:01 AM GMT
    While I appreciate the passion on wanting to run repeal efforts every two years until Prop 8 is reversed, our community simply doesn't have the human or financial resources to do it. A great deal of the money for No on 8 came from outside California. With the recession hurting all of our organizations, I sincerely doubt we'd be able to come up with essentially $20 million or more a year indefinitely. I also think that contrary to what some think, multiple defeats would be extremely demoralizing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 28, 2009 1:22 AM GMT
    Trying too often with a losing cause brings voter fatigue. And the younger demographic, which does indeed seem to be trending in a more pro-gay marriage direction, will not have changed enough in 2 years to make the difference.

    I would therefore tend to side with the experts who advise to wait until 2012, and win this repeal the first time and permanently.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Jul 28, 2009 1:30 AM GMT
    It's pointless to be putting it up to a vote anyway though. Even if we did win gay marriage, I wouldn't feel good about it because it wouldn't actually mean anything. It could be voted away the next election cycle and it also makes the whole idea of basic human rights meaningless if we win just because voters happen to be swayed to support us. It really needs to be decided by the supreme court, the same way interracial marriages were. Well it SHOULDN'T have to go to court anyway but I think you know what I mean