Winning back Marriage Equality in California - recommendation & plan

  • metta

    Posts: 38674

    Aug 12, 2009 7:20 PM GMT
    Equality California's Recommendations:


    For the first time, we have the opportunity to choose the best time to go back to the ballot, and we strongly think 2012 is the way to go. Here are the top reasons why:
    What we’ve found on the ground is that changing the hearts and minds of Californians that do not currently support marriage for same-sex couples is slow-going but doable. It takes commitment, time and significant numbers of volunteers to undo the lies the other side has been telling for decades. Going door-to-door with the truth is working – we are so grateful for the work of all of the wonderful volunteers and our great staff of field organizers – and if we do this work at the level we need to we can have majority support by 2012.
    Many of our key allies, including leaders in LGBT communities of color and faith as well as the organizations that provide critical support services to our community (especially in this time of draconian budget cuts), feel that we need more time to build support without significantly damaging the important infrastructure our community has spent decades building and depends on.
    Younger, more supportive voters are much more likely to vote during the presidential election in 2012 than in a gubernatorial election in 2010, which will be comprised of more older, unsupportive voters. And the extra three years will add young people who are now 15, 16 and 17 to the voter rolls. All together, analysis demonstrates that we go in with 4% more support in 2012 than 2010 on these factors alone.
    Many of our community’s most generous donors want to ensure that their contributions to win back marriage are wisely invested to create the best opportunity to win marriage back and have indicated support for a three-year education and political effort and are opposed to a 2010 campaign.

    Winning Back Marriage in California: Analysis and Plan
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2009 7:37 PM GMT
    Just looking at that poll graph makes me cringe. They are trying to show a major swing in public opinion when, according to their own source, there has been absolutely no change since 2005. All numbers from them have both been well within the margin of error. Booo!

    But, this isn't going to be won with big TV ads. This campaign will be won in the canvass. Their plan is pretty light on details. If they craft the correct sized universe, have a solid voter ID plan, a voter reg. plan, and enough people fot GOTV they have a shot.

    This will also be a coattail election. If Gavin Newsom runs, isn't beat up and outspent in a primary, and has a pretty meg Republican candidate then we can win. If Gavin's negatives go way up during the primary and a strong GOP candidate emerges. I doubt this we will win this election.

    This is all conjecture without looking at numbers though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2009 1:08 AM GMT
    I think trying to overturn Prop 8 in 2010 is a mistake. As Zombie pointed out, the polling hasn't changed in nearly four years. Now, that means that either we've reach the people we can reach and it won't move much further until a generational shift (e.g. older people die), or we have to spend a shitload more money and not just during campaigns but throughout the year in order to reach whatever remains of the movable middle. Neither seems possible in just 15 months and the latter is virtually inconceivable when LGBT foundations and donors, like everyone else, is cutting back due to the economy.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 13, 2009 1:48 AM GMT
    Waiting for 2012 is just ridiculous. Here's why we shouldn't wait until 2012... Obama! He was the reason it passed. Statistically, more so than older voters, the main swing in the vote was from African Americans who came out in larger than ever droves to vote for Obama, and then too voted for prop 8. I don't think we can expect to see all those people vote for a gubernatorial election. And frankly, part of the reason the measure passed was all these groups that want our money to canvass sat on their asses until a month before the election because the June public opinion poll said 69 percent would vote against it, and they didn't feel they had to do squat; they only really tried once it became obvious the other side was working hard and reducing the numbers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2009 3:16 AM GMT
    The polling isn't all there is too it. I was just saying that it was a bit dishonest of them, though arguable appropriate to a request for funds and bodies. I wasn't trying to say it was a mistake to campaign in 2010. I do, however, think it is a huge mistake to campaign in 2010 if they are not serious about it. I think it is a huge mistake to try and raise 500k to do three TV ads in 2009. That is just about the most stupid thing you could do. TV ads have a shelf life of about a week and they are expensive of hell. They do not target any audience when we need to start persuading likely voters who did not vote against prop 8. A fine GOTV strategy, but a terrible one over a year out.

    They are already running a bad campaign that wont win and so I wont give them a dime or volunteer a minute. It isn't like there aren't hundreds political hacks in CA with experience and better ideas, they just must not be in a position of leadership in this organization. booo!

    As to Calibro's point. I am not sure if Obama running in 2012 will have the same effect it did in 2008. New York state has three times the AA population CA does. Yet, polling shows the first Black governor losing in a primary against our White Attorney General among AA's 52-25. The circumstances are not identical, for sure. But it could indicate that Obama may not be able to bring out the first time AA voters for a second time in 2012.

    A lot will happen for Obama and in CA between now and then though.
  • metta

    Posts: 38674

    Aug 13, 2009 7:54 AM GMT

  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Aug 13, 2009 8:10 AM GMT
    If gay marriage happens in California because of majority vote then it will not be a victory for human equality, gay rights, or civil rights in general. It will only be an affirmation of majority rule, regardless if it's a violation in principal of human rights or not, or of a minority.

    This needs to be decided by constitutional principals, not majority vote. So what if enough people vote for it? How can anyone feel good knowing they got gay marriage for the same reasons they were denied it only a few years before and many years before that?

    I sure wouldn't feel good about it and won't feel good about it if it happens that way. And besides that, what about the fact that people could just ban it again by majority vote sometime in the future?

    That's why it's just wrong.

    Besides, a lot of people were content with mediocre treatment and we got domestic partnerships out of it. Good luck convincing people who are against gay marriage but for domestic partnerships to vote for gay marriage. Why would you want to have gay marriages anyway when you have domestic partnerships? Just to give a bit of a sting to the anti-gay marriage folks? Like holding a grudge? (I bet that is how it will get spun or interpreted)

    I think that is where we are at now because people were to willing to settle for short-sighted quick fixes instead of the real deal.
  • ERinVa

    Posts: 11

    Aug 13, 2009 5:57 PM GMT
    I firmly believe that marriage equality could be passed by a majorty vote in Californiia in 2010 and would stand a greater chance of defeat in 2012 for the reasons stated in a previous reply {1)Obama supporters & 2)gay rights organization sitting on their ass}. More importantly, I agree with the reply stating that this is a Constitutional question. Civil Rights should never be put-[b]up for a vote. [/b] The original ruling by the California Supreme Court was correct. Their second ruling, upholding the passage of Prop 8 was illogical and idiotic and should be declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court for two obvious reasons:
    #1-The California constitution requires more than a simple majority vote to make a change to the constitution itself. Prop 8 was an addition to the constitution and not just a referendum. Therefore according to the California Constitution, prop 8 did not receive the required vote to make it a part of the Constitution. The same goes for the US Constitution. Despite the ridiculous argument given by Kenneth Starr at the trial, the US Constitution-just like California's, can not be changed by a simple majority vote.
    #2-The Supreme court of California allowed the gay marriages that had been performed prior to their ruling remain valid. This is clearly and obviously giving these couples special priviledges (sp?) and creating a special class of people-blatently against any and all constitutional principles.

    Therefore, that should be the priority. Getting this case before the US Supreme court. I do not believe that even the current make-up of the US Supreme court would allow the sloppy, illogical decision of the California court to stand.
    Finally, all laws which deny gay marriage should be declared Unconstitutional because they violate the 14th amendment. Also, DOMA should be declared Unconstitutional not only because it violates the 14th amendment but also Article 4 section 1-the full faith and credit clause which states that all of the states and the federal govt must recognize as valid the laws of the other states. So, every state and the federal govt , according to the constitution, must recognize the legally granted marriages performed in the states which do so.
    All that being said (sorry for the length) Rather than continuing to fight state by state, issue by issue, I think it is time to work for comprehensive federal civil rights legislation reaffirming that the principles of the constitution apply to everyone-yes-even gays!! Join the Equality March in Washington DC in October!!
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Aug 14, 2009 9:11 PM GMT
    There is also the 9th Amendment:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.