Updated Nov. 7
The get out the vote for Obama campaign, to which the LGBT beltway bandits contributed mightily, achieved its goal of bringing out record numbers of black and Hispanic voters, who heavily supported the anti-gay marriage amendments that will constitutionally bar same-sex marriages in Florida and Arizona (and, even worse, roll back marriage equality in a state where it now exists, California. Also, Arkansas voters banned gay couples from adopting children.
From Reuters, California Stops Gay Marriage Amid Obama Victory. That state's anti-gay marriage Prop 8 passed with exit polls showing 51% of whites opposing the amendment but 70% of African-Americans supporting it, and 75% of African-American women voting to ban our marriages. But what price is losing marriage equality when we now have the light bearer to reign over us?
In early October, we posted one volunteer's warning cry:
"Being behind in the polls wasn't inevitable-we were ahead for a long time-but now...their side has out fund-raised us by $10 million. ...
"Gays have a third choice in 2008; say to hell with the presidential election-Obama is no savior for the gays, and McCain no threat-and get 100% behind the No on 8 campaign. But no-our national organizations had to pretend the presidential election mattered for us this year, and for that, we might just all pay dearly, for a long time to come.
Then, on the eve of the election, Obama reiterated that " 'marriage is between a man and a woman." Yes, he said he was against Prop 8 and amending state constitutions, but everything else he said could have been used in a pro-Prop 8 ad. [update: And it was! A pro-prop 8 robocall used Obama's anti-gay marriage remarks.] The message wasn't lost on the faithful. And, of course, Obama had previously explained that only male-female marriage is a divinely ordained sacred union to be enshrined by law.
Don't expect Obama or the Democratic congress to take steps to modify much less revoke the odious Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act. The LGBT Obamist cadres will be explaining shortly that such a move wouldn't be expedient, after all, in terms of the greater goal of enacting their sweepingly "progressive" redistributionist agenda.
More. McCain received an historic 27% of the self-identified gay vote, according to CNN's exit poll. But to the LGBT media, we're virtually invisible. And as far as the beltway bandits at Human Rights Campaign are concerned, we don't exist.
But what if the money HRC raised to get out the vote for Obama and help secure their own sinecures in the Obama bureaucracies had gone to fighting these initiatives instead?
54 Comments for “Marriage Bans Win in Florida, Arizona; Marriage Rolled Back in California”
posted by Priya Lynn on
Stephen, if every LGBT had voted for Mccain it wouldn’t have prevented a single black person from voting for the anti-marriage ammendments. Obama also resulted in a wave of pro-gay young people coming to the polls so there was no net effect from Obama voters on the anti-marriage initiatives. Give it up, electing Obama had nothing to do with the defeats on marriage.
I for one am delighted that Obama won. Even more satisfying than his win is the fact that Michigan matt, Northdallas, and all the other right wing anti-gays lost.
LOL, so much for your desire to pack the supreme court with anti-gay judges. We may have lost the battles on the anti-marriage iniatives, but thanks to the Obama win and his pending appointment of moderate judges we’ll win the war.
posted by Tim on
It’s an astonishing irony — on a night when black people scored a victory over racism, they disproportionately cast a vote against another minority. I really hope there is soul-searching in that community, but then again, why? The Dems used us to get elected, but now can ignore us like Clinton did in his administration. DOMA ain’t going nowhere.
I feel sick to my stomach.
posted by fhperkins on
Stephen, Hurts doesn’t it? Hope after we all finish licking our wounds that we will be able to follow McCains elegant advice, get over it and get on board. Because one thing that’s certain and that is there is room on the bus for everyone and we all want to try to make this a more a better and more equitable society and “fasten your seat belt its going to be a bumpy ride.” Me, I’ll have to pay more taxes and me and my partner can’t even live in this country ’cause he is a foreigner. But I don’t think it was right when Bush told me that I could pay proportionally fewer taxes than a hard worker because my income is in dividends. I may not have old glory flying in front of my house but I know that we are in a real crunch and we all have to make some sacrifices to make our country a better place. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that this country is going to be a friendlier and more tolerant place when everyone has access to good health care and a good education.
posted by Kevin on
Gay marriage is now just as illegal in San Francisco as it is in Oklahoma City and Montgomery. Those of us who live in such places have been told for years we’re stupid to live in Jesusland, and we should move to “enlightened” places on the coasts like California and Florida. All I can say to my friends in these states this morning is “I’m sorry”. Perhaps this will give us the kick we need to rethink our strategy to finding equality.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Thanks, guys, really, for all the Pride parades and Stonewall rallies. Those of us gays who really, actually want to get married and adopt children owe so much to you–like the fact our hopes have been totally shattered. When is the gay community going to realize that flamboyant, exotic behavior and in-your-face style coming out is–AS WE CAN NOW SEE–destructive for those of us traditional gays? How many more states have to vote us down before you realize that Stonewall created a backlash and Pride parades inspire contempt?
posted by Tommy on
I used to think my mom was racist. She voted for Obama, saying that she has nothing against people because of their skin color or nation of origin. She says it’s mainstream American black culture she has no respect for: in her view, it glorifies ignorance, promotes underachievement, is self-righteous, self-aggrandizes, self-promotes, and exemplifies a shift toward MTV-generation values. I think it’s stupid to make an association between a specific category of people and values because it makes any person belonging to that category seem like someone with those values. But I agree with her that those values are deplorable. And I think today’s outcome in California has been deplorable.
– Hypocritical racial minorities
– what, like 25 mil Mormon dollars
– more millions from small donors who made larger donations than they could afford to “the most important issue ever”.
– the purportedly shameful conduct of no on 8 activists at the polling places
I wonder what goes through the minds of yes voters? What do they suppose themselves to be protecting marriage from? Protecting marriage from what? From what? I think Corvino is right. People are making aesthetic judgements: they imagine gay marriage and it gives them a perverse and yucky feeling. People try to make MTV/me-generation crap sound like a liberal kids’ thing. But the truth is it’s everyone. What could be more self centered than to suppose that you personally find something distasteful, therefore it should be banned? Even if when you reason about it with any rigor, the actual arguments are vacuous?
posted by Ashpenaz on
So you’re saying that all those famous San Fransisco Pride Parades had NOTHING to do with how people see gay relationships? It’s all homophobia? We did NOTHING to create any negative stereotypes which might have influenced votes?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But I don’t think it was right when Bush told me that I could pay proportionally fewer taxes than a hard worker because my income is in dividends.
Then you could have sold off your stocks and given the proceeds away so you could live like the hard worker.
What I don’t get is this: why do liberals invariably support that which they will not practice themselves? If you want to give people access to healthcare, reach into your own pocket and pay for it. But instead, you insist on raising taxes on “hard workers” to fund your social initiatives.
Meanwhile, the amusing part is watching Priya already start to spin for why she supports black Democrats who vote against gay marriage and refuses to call them hateful or homophobic. It just goes to show what her priorities are.
posted by Attmay on
Boycott California!
posted by Priya Lynn on
Yeah, right Northdallas, instead of voting for someone that opposes gay marriage LGBTs should have voted for someone that not only opposes gay marriage, but opposes civil unions, supports DOMA, DADT, state anti-marriage ammendments and wants to vote for a Federal anti-marriage ammendment if more states support equal marriage. Brilliant Northdallas, gays shouldn’t support the lesser of two evils, they should jump in league with the devil to totaly destroy their lives according to you. Your hatred of LGBTs and desire to hurt them knows no bounds. I am thrilled that your efforts to hurt, demonize and demean gays have been dealt a severe blow for the next 8 years.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yeah, right Northdallas, instead of voting for someone that opposes gay marriage LGBTs should have voted for someone that not only opposes gay marriage, but opposes civil unions, supports DOMA, DADT, state anti-marriage ammendments and wants to vote for a Federal anti-marriage ammendment if more states support equal marriage.
Doesn’t seem to bother gays when said person is a Democrat or an Obama supporter.
Meanwhile, Priya, one should always keep in mind that you consider it “hurting, demonizing, and demeaning gays” to criticize gay people who dress children up as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs, gay people who molest children, and gay people who sexually harass their coworkers.
posted by Carl on
May as well post this again since it’s still not mentioned in your new post:
Steven, do you have any comments on the huge amounts of money and support that LDS put into funding and passing Prop 8? The media, and many gay conservatives, will likely focus on ethnic minorities, but since you’re reminding us of the crossroads, shouldn’t we also be worried about the increasing power the Mormon Church seems to have over our lives?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The humor in statements like Carl’s is that he genuinely does not understand why the ads pointing out that gays were anti-religious and were going to force their will onto churches were so effective.
posted by Tommy on
umm… North Dallas Thirty, I hope I’m not hitting you with a big shock, but gays are anti-religious. I certainly am. I am not hostile to religious people and many of them are fine human beings, but I think religion is stupid and religious belief is vacuous. For most gays, first you realization that so many arguments why you shouldn’t exist/ are the spawn of the devil are religious in nature, then you quickly fall down the slippery slope of seeing how the whole system of organized religion is a ridiculous phenomenon that may even be menacing. Any “religious” gays usually expouse very liberal, non-absolute spiritual beliefs and lose their faith more easily.
posted by Ashpenaz on
It never ceases to fascinate me how gays never want to look at any behavior on their part which might lead to negative stereotypes and losing votes. Again–you see absolutely NO cause and effect between Pride rallies, Stonewall, Rosie O’Donell and the results in California, Florida, and Arizona?
I am a gay who believes in the Nicene Creed, Intelligent Design, and the inspiration of Scripture. I believe God created me for a lifelong, sexually monogamous relationship with another man. I want to thank all of you more sophisticated gays for making it that much harder for all of us out here in Jesusland. No, really. Thanks. Throw a condom from the float for me.
posted by Tommy on
Carl, good question. Once again, one should always qualify before talking about racial minorities or mormons or gays or any other category. There are some very nice Mormons who deeply and sincerely believe while remaining relatively neutral in the culture wars. Mormonism is convenient for illustrating the absurdly noticeable manipulations in the history of religious movements (none of the others fare much better when you take a good look). A ne’er do well from the east coast “finds” some plates (which he then loses again) and various other treasures from god. His home state kicks him out for trying to establish a theocratic dictatorship, so he and his small but fecund band of followers strike out west where they later wait, poised to take over the west coast by artificially elevating reproductive rates, taking advantage of the hospitality of democratic government, and prohibiting despoiling contact with the outside world. Today, they have one of the “best” education systems in the US in terms of metting its goals, which are to keep the children Mormon and fill them with such a sense of self-righteous potency that they knock on the doors of perfect strangers and try to hawk their wares.
posted by Tommy on
Ashpenaz, you’re wrong about me. I don’t neglect to realize that many people hold us in contempt and the conduct of many gay people is behind that. But you are also wrong to assign fault to anyone. I’m sorry if you feel like some kind of gay culture or movement is reducing your personal quality of life. But you must realize (perhaps being a religious person helps with this) that we are all facing things bigger than ourselves. The way people behave, the trends in character and behavior among categories of people, all these things are out of our hands. Many gays are anti-religious and a large minority are ostentatious and self-destructive. Many black people think in terms of entitlement and hate the idea that they should have to put up with things they find distasteful. Many religious people are self-righteous, pretentious, and some even go out of their way to make a minstrel show out of their faith (not to name any names). I am inclined to think that all these things are due to social and cultural factors. Since many gay/black/mormon people share common experiences growing up, there are some trends and similarities among them. Some of the consequences of these circumstances may be unpleasent, but they are facts of life.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I would say that many Mormons reject extremist polygamist cults as not representing true Mormonism. I would say that many blacks reject hip-hop urban culture as not representing blacks. I would say that Mormons and blacks believe that their life is made more difficult by those extremist groups who misrepresent them.
So why is it so hard to realize that many gays reject the San Francisco/Pride/Stonewall culture as an extremist cult form of gayness which is ultimately toxic to those of us gays who believe that being gay doesn’t come with special rules? Gays, like all of God’s children, are called to lifelong monogamy. We are called to raise our children in healthy environments. We are called to nurture ours and others’ families. We, like straights, will fall from that ideal, but that’s the ideal.
This election cycle has shown the toxic, self-defeating nature of the Pride cult. I stand outside of that definition of homosexual expression. I hope we can find a new way of being visibly gay which conforms, yes, I said it, CONFORMS, to the traditional values of this great country.
posted by Carl on
“The humor in statements like Carl’s is that he genuinely does not understand why the ads pointing out that gays were anti-religious and were going to force their will onto churches were so effective.”
The effectiveness of ads has little to do with the blame game on who was most responsible for the amendment’s passage. Steven has (in two posts now) chosen not to discuss the heavy LDS involvement in the funding, voter mobilization, and passage of Prop 8. As long as we’re going to rehash again why black voters don’t support gay rights, why Obama wasn’t more supportive, and so on, we should also talk about the Mormon push against gay rights and what will happen next. They will likely want further restrictions on what gays and lesbians are allowed to do, so this is probably just the start of the discussion.
posted by Ashpenaz on
A confirmed bachelor and his dear friend asking for a civil union in order to simplify the legal arrangements is NOT seen as a threat to marriage. This is the model that will work to gain gays equal protection. Civil unions are not “separate but equal” any more than bathrooms or basketball leagues. A relationship does not have to be called “marriage” to have dignity and respect. It is up to gays to make civil unions even BETTER than marriage–to make civil unions synonymous with monogamy, faithfulness, and nurturing love of children. The next step is to claim civil unions as our way of relationships and make those unions into partnerships which are the envy of the world.
We also need to jettison the word “gay.” I’m going to simply describe myself as “attracted to men,” if anyone asks. I’m not going to answer questions no one asks. I’m going to live my life and allow people to assume what they feel they need to assume. And when, on some enchanted evening, I might see a stranger across a crowded room, I’ll let my singleness and biting wit speak for itself as we find a quiet corner to affirm our affection. One day, when the time is right, we’ll head down to the courthouse to sign the papers which simplify our legal arrangements.
And no one, not even James Dobson or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, will feel that their understanding of marriage is threatened.
Let’s give this model a try, shall we? Unless you think the Pride/Stonewall/O’Donell model which is shutting down our rights in state after state is working.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
They will likely want further restrictions on what gays and lesbians are allowed to do, so this is probably just the start of the discussion.
And thus the gay community begins its usual cycle; when faced with the question of why people vote against them, certainly the fault must be with those people and, of course, not at all with them.
posted by Bobby on
Well, as everyone can see, homophobia and liberalism can coexist. I’ve read several black people posting comments like “I didn’t choose to be black, I was born black.”
Thank God I oppose affirmative action.
posted by Jorge on
Well you called it on the African American anti-gay turnout on Prop 8.
Twenty-seven percent, eh? I guess we aren’t completely immune to what Republican candidates say about banning gay marriage after all.
posted by Pat on
It never ceases to fascinate me how gays never want to look at any behavior on their part which might lead to negative stereotypes and losing votes. Again–you see absolutely NO cause and effect between Pride rallies, Stonewall, Rosie O’Donell and the results in California, Florida, and Arizona?
There may be some relationship, but not the way you think it is. First of all, why was there even a vote at all? If there was, somehow, a vote on same sex marriage even as recent as ten years ago in California, it would have failed miserably. The fact that “No” almost won is progress. As it stands, California does have the equivalent of civil unions. Not bad, despite all these pride rallies and Stonewall. Sure there are some distasteful things in the gay community. But because of Stonewall and others pushing hard for gay rights, we can be open and more free without having to call ourselves “confirmed bachelors” and “dear friends” or some other fake demeaning euphemism.
As for African Americans voting overwhelmingly for Prop. 8, what can I say? It’s not the first time that one minority group has been on the side of another, only to get sh&t on.
posted by Pat on
The media, and many gay conservatives, will likely focus on ethnic minorities, but since you’re reminding us of the crossroads, shouldn’t we also be worried about the increasing power the Mormon Church seems to have over our lives?
The millions of dollars that the Mormon Church poured into “Yes on 8” and strip people’s rights in another state is even more disturbing. However, the voters of California could have told the church what they could have done with their millions. Yet, it appears that perhaps enough were influenced to swing the vote to pass Prop. 8.
posted by Ashpenaz on
So, if I don’t call myself “gay,” I am demeaning myself? I can’t choose my own self-identifier? Can blacks be “people of color,” “African Americans,” or, simply, “Americans?” Is one more demeaning than the other?
The gay community wants ownership over everything homosexual so that everyone identifies the same way, has one perspective on history, and one way of working toward equality. Even when it’s clear that this monolithic, cultish approach is self-defeating, as this week has shown, they don’t want anyone to step out of line.
“Confirmed bachelor” and “dear friend” are much more dignified than “gay” and “queer” and “faggot” and “queen.” Perhaps if we identified in a way which showed self-respect, we’d be further ahead.
posted by Pat on
So, if I don’t call myself “gay,” I am demeaning myself? I can’t choose my own self-identifier?
Ashpenaz, feel free to call yourself whatever you want. That’s part of what freedom is all about. I personally think it’s demeaning, and would never refer myself that way. It smacks of second or third class citizenship. Obviously, you feel differently.
The gay community wants ownership over everything homosexual so that everyone identifies the same way, has one perspective on history, and one way of working toward equality. Even when it’s clear that this monolithic, cultish approach is self-defeating, as this week has shown, they don’t want anyone to step out of line.
Even assuming that this is all true for the moment, their power is limited on how you choose to live your life. You are free to associate yourself with people who feel as you do, have a relationship with one of them, enter a civil union but call yourself a “confirmed bachelor” and your spouse as your “dear friend.” NO ONE is stopping you. Not my personal opinion, not some gay monolith, whatever. But don’t expect the rest of us to want to turn the clock backwards.
“Confirmed bachelor” and “dear friend” are much more dignified than “gay” and “queer” and “faggot” and “queen.”
I’m not crazy about the terms “queer” and “queen,” and I certainly don’t like “faggot.” But we’ll have to agree to disagree about “confirmed bachelor” and “dear friend” being more dignified than “gay,” “queen,” and “queer.” I consider it about as dignified as “faggot” except that “confirmed bachelor” and “dear friend” sound nicer. But they are all demeaning terms symbolizing second class citizenship, and that relationships between two men are so inferior, that they cannot be recognized the same way that other relationships are.
Perhaps there is a better term. But for now, “gay” is fine.
posted by Bobby on
“Gays, like all of God’s children, are called to lifelong monogamy.”
—OH please, King Salomon had 600 wives and like a 1,000 concubines, and God had no problem with that.
We lost the gay marriage deal because the country is not ready for it. Just like the prostitution issue they defeated in San Francisco. We don’t live in a libertarian society, and with Obama, get ready for more government telling you what to do.
And by the way, “gay” is a great word. It means happy, lively, carefree and joyful
among other synonyms. You’re better off calling yourself “gay” than queer. Straights also use the word gay. So let’s not complicate things. Our society needs labels, everyone in the world is something, gay, straight, baptist, republican, democrat. Labels bring clarity. When Ricky Martin wouldn’t answer questions about his sexual orientation, he ended up looking like an asshole and people ridiculed him. The same with Clay Aiken. So call yourself gay for God’s sakes. It’s either that or sex with women. And honey, I don’t think you can afford sex with women. Last time I had a breeder experience it cost me $300. At least with men I don’t have to pay, LOL.
posted by Throbert McGee on
And by the way, “gay” is a great word. It means happy, lively, carefree and joyful among other synonyms.
That’s exactly why I prefer to self-describe as “homosexual” — because it doesn’t mean anything else.
To identify myself with a euphemism — whether “gay” or “confirmed bachelor” — is to concede the point up front that erotic love between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is a topic not fit for mixed company.
(And my answer to “but homosexual sounds too clinical” is: if it “sounds too clinical,” it’s because we disdain to use it in colloquial speech. Is African-American “too clinical” simply because it has seven syllables while black has one?)
posted by Throbert McGee on
As it stands, California does have the equivalent of civil unions.
Looking from outside California, my hunch is that the existence of very strong domestic-partnership laws in California actually helped the passage of Prop 8 — that is, some people had no trouble voting against gay marriage because they felt that DP laws provided adequate protection for same-sex couples.
To put it another way, I think that Prop 8 would’ve failed resoundingly if it had been written in a way that threatened or even appeared to threaten DP laws.
posted by MMMM on
Hi Ashpehnaz, I just want to stand up and say “HEY! I’m the queer who made life miserable for all you real Americans out there.” I also want to confirm for you that I’m also the outrageous nelly queen that can’t be taken seriously but yet still comes off like a nasty threathening sexual predator to all those upright straight neighbors of yours that voted against gay marriage and stopped inviting you to parties. I will be glad to throw a condom from the float for you this year in the the gay pride parade. I also pledge to do my best to cause all the backlash you describe! Maybe when I dress up in nun’s drag this year, I can fart in Tom Delay’s face. If I did that, would you be satisfied that I am indeed the fag offender that you have in mind? If not, please give me a list of the additional things I can do to shame you most.
posted by Pat on
Throbert, “homosexual” is fine. As you say, the meaning is clear. But the same is pretty much clear about “gay.” It may have been a euphemism in the past, but not any more. While it still means happy, carefree, etc., it’s virtually not used today. At least the term came from a good place. I can’t say the same about confirmed bachelor. And I’m not going to use a term that implies to some that I’m straight and I’m never going to try to commit to someone. Both are false.
posted by Pat on
We lost the gay marriage deal because the country is not ready for it. Just like the prostitution issue they defeated in San Francisco. We don’t live in a libertarian society, and with Obama, get ready for more government telling you what to do.
Bobby, sure Obama is not libertarian like most Democrats. Same with Bush and most Republicans. The only difference is the issues they want government telling you what to do. Democrats are more likely to be hands off with regard to prostitution, sex, and marriage, while Republicans are more likely to be hands off with regard to health care.
posted by Marcus on
Steve Miller goes cry-baby over the role of non-whites in passing the anti-gay legislations without even suggesting he acknowledges an even heftier contribution — the one made by his fellow right-wingers.
Distribution of votes for and against Prop. 8 by race:
White: Yes: 47%; No: 53%
African-American: Yes: 70% No: 30%
Latino: Yes: 51% No: 49%
Asian: Yes: 47%; No: 53%
With the exception of Blacks, all the other groups are almost evenly devided by the issue.
By political orientation:
Democrat: Yes: 35%; No: 65%
Republican: Yes: 81%; No: 19%
Independent: Yes: 44%; No: 56%
Clearly, gay marriage in California inspired the ire of Republicans more than it did amongst African Americans.
posted by avee on
Marcus, you miss the point. The national GLBT groups did not mobilize to get out the Republican (anti-gay) vote; they DID contribute to efforts to get out the (anti-gay) African-American vote. That’s Miller’s critique.
posted by Marcus on
If Miller wanted his Republican candidate to be elected, then he would also have wanted Republicans to massively vote in 4th November. Oh wait — that also means the anti-gay legislations would be strengthened by the presence of Republicans in the states such propositions were to be voted. Oh, now I get it. Miller is no more coherent than the gay Democrats he angrily mocks.
posted by Ashpenaz on
For close friends and family, I say I’m “attracted to men.” For acquaintances and coworkers, when they ask, I say I’m a “confirmed bachelor” or “not planning to marry.” So far, no one has asked. Has anyone noticed how seldom people ask? Why do gays feel the need to run around answering questions no one cares about? I, for one, am perfectly content to live my life knowing nothing about Ricky Martin and Clay Aiken, and I’m sure I speak for the whole nation, if not the world, and any extraterrestrials who are planning to invade.
The point is, you can be honest and homosexual without being in people’s faces. What people are rejecting in these votes is not homosexuality as such, but the fact that Pride has been shoved down their throats, so to speak. I really think that 51% or more of every state would have no problem with a confirmed bachelor and his dear friend getting a civil union. But they do have a problem with two drag queens in wedding dresses throwing out condoms as they walk down the courthouse steps. If we shut down every Pride parade and Rainbow rally and Coming Out day and Gay History month, in one year, we’d have some form of legal rights in every state. But gays would rather party than adopt children.
posted by Ted B. on
Perhaps after this stab-in-the-back by the church-going Black community this will cause the G/L community at-large to re-examine the propositin that we share common-purpose with the Black community on human and civil rights.
Note to HRC and NGTF, stop giving money blindly to the DNC and Democratic Party without demanding some accountability. the DNC and Obama didn’t lift a finger to help fight Prop.-8, and gave a tacit wink to their Black allies to preach against it.
posted by dalea on
Looking at this, we did carry White and Asian voters. And came very close with Hispanics. Which given the absolute incompetance of the No on 8 campaign amazes me. For years I have been reading the IGF critique of our national groups. I was somewhat skeptical of that, but now having experienced them first hand, you are right. This campaign was a grade A number one clusterfuck.
Volunteered for the effort. At one Art Fair, the organizers were late. There were volunteers milling about but we did not know each other so couldn’t do anything. Once we started, we were restricted to asking people to work phone banks on week nites and asking for money. People were begging us for literature they could pass out to friends and family. The organizers told us that the campaign had choosen to be a group that did not pass out literature. Then we asked for Spanish and Asian language literature or scripts. Everything was in English, in a state that is 35% Hispanic and 12% Asian.
People wanted yard signs. To get this they would have to drive 14 miles thru very heavy traffic, pay to park, and buy them at the office which was not open much.
On election day, the campaign did not bother to call many of the people who volunteered. They just left people to do what they could without any resources.
Door to door campaigning was forbidden. Any outreach beyond a narrow range of venues was forbidden. We were restricted to tables outside Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods. Not Vons, Ralphs, Target or more ordinary places.
Three of us wanted to set up in front of a local Target. We were discouraged from doing so. And realized we would need to make our own Spanish language literature.
Arrrggghhh
posted by dalea on
A few more random observations. On my ballot, the only Republicans running were McCain/Pallin. The district is mainly working class, older whites, younger Hispanics and Asians. The opposition to the Democrats comes from the Green Party. In this part of CA, the Republicans are extinct.
DKos has had diaries on the No On 8 effort. Endless negative stories about the leadership and the national orgs. This may be when they are finally taken down.
posted by Attmay on
The No on 8 Campaign was beyond incompetent. Their ads failed to show what was really at stake: the marriage rights of committed, loving, monogamous couples building their lives together.
And just because Republicans voted for the measure does not let blacks off the hook.
Note to HRC and NGTF, stop giving money blindly to the DNC and Democratic Party without demanding some accountability. the DNC and Obama didn’t lift a finger to help fight Prop.-8, and gave a tacit wink to their Black allies to preach against it.
Yes We Can…Marginalize The Fags.
posted by Pat on
For close friends and family, I say I’m “attracted to men.” For acquaintances and coworkers, when they ask, I say I’m a “confirmed bachelor” or “not planning to marry.” So far, no one has asked. Has anyone noticed how seldom people ask? Why do gays feel the need to run around answering questions no one cares about?
I can’t speak for all gays, Ashpenaz, but I don’t particularly feel the need. However, I was recently in a situation at a meeting where colleagues were talking about their family lives. So I talked briefly about mine. No biggie. But you’re right, people do seldom ask about my romantic life. But on the occasions they do, I say that I’m gay. As far as I know, no one is offended. If any are, tough cookies, they asked. No one that I know who is straight and married say that they are a confirmed bachelor or don’t plan on getting married. I’ll be damned if I demean myself and my relationships by saying that. I suppose I could say I’m attracted to men. Seems kind of silly in most situations, since I don’t think I’ve ever had a straight male colleague or acquaintance tell me they are attracted to women. I don’t know, gay just seems to work better.
The point is, you can be honest and homosexual without being in people’s faces.
No kidding. And most gay people I know are no more in people’s faces about their homosexuality any more than their straight counterparts are in people’s faces about their heterosexuality.
If we shut down every Pride parade and Rainbow rally and Coming Out day and Gay History month, in one year, we’d have some form of legal rights in every state. But gays would rather party than adopt children.
I don’t know what to tell you Ashpenaz. The areas in the country in which the gay community engages in behaviors that you find most distasteful are the areas that have marriage or civil unions. These are the places where gay persons are more open, and there is less anti-gay bigotry. Yes, many persons, gay and straight, would rather party than have children. It’s called freedom.
posted by David Hearne on
I’m in Florida and I feel like I have been stabbed in the back by 480,000 (give or take) Democrats. I’m angry. The US Supreme Court can undo Amendment 2, but it can’t undo the betrayal.
posted by David Hearne on
We had significant support for “no on 2” in the black community, but the precinct map shows that they did disproportionately vote “yes on 2”. But the precinct maps show that there was an economic and presumably educational division in the black community. Middle class blacks voted “no on 2”. If everyone who didn’t vote for McCain also voted “no on 2” then the measure would have failed. So it would be easy to say, “The blacks did us in.” But, to say that would be to disregard the fact that legions of Republicans, who pretty much all self identify as middle class, whether they are or aren’t, and who have at least normal distribution in the middle and upper economic class and ranks of the educated voted “yes on 2”. So what was their excuse?
I may have been stabbed in the back by a bunch of black people, but I got screwed by a train of white people.
posted by David Hearne on
It certainly doesn’t help to have photos splashed across the internet of San Francisco’s worst behaviors at PRIDE, Folsum, and Dore events, but I don’t think it makes or breaks the cause of gay rights. It has, however, in the last 25 years or so gone from being hip or outrageous to being rather clich
posted by Attmay on
That’s where you see the folly in putting all your eggs in one basket. It’s easy for Republicans to demonize us because we’ve never given them any support. Democrats don’t need to do anything actually helpful because they get the majority of gay votes no matter what.
Supporting exclusively one party is like buying albums from only one record label, including music you don’t like.
San Francisco is hardly a model city. It’s expensive, they have a problem with homeless people, and even gay couples with children are leaving the city.
posted by David Hearne on
While it’s frustrating that there are no realistic alternatives to the Democratic Party for gay people, hence we have little leverage in the party, it’s absurd to suggest that we should diffuse what power, resources, and influence we do have by giving some of it to a party where we are completely powerless.
Anti-gay hate is written into the platform of the Republican party. They have done this knowing full well that there are gay members of that party, that there are gay leaders of that party. Just how much respect would you have for gay people who have so little self respect as to belong to your party when your party’s official position is anti-gay?
posted by Attmay on
That’s a false dichotomy. You could always try to stay and fight from within. There was a group called Republicans Against 8.
Republicans are 35% of the population of California, and Prop 8 passed. The problem is with both parties.
posted by David Hearne on
I believe that I acknowledged that Democrats voted anti-gay. In a prioritized effort, one can only choose the Democratic Party to work with on this issue, because the anti-gay effort is entrenched in the GOP. It goes beyond that, though. Most gay people are on board for universal healthcare and the Republican PArty stands in firm opposition to National Single Payer. Most gay people disagree with GOP positions on many things from drug policy, to justice issues, and (although I have no idea why) to immigration. As long as the Republican PArty feels the need to pander to the Religious Right, then no self-respecting gay person can claim to be working from within anymore than a man in a coal mine armed with a feather can claim to be digging out.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I believe that I acknowledged that Democrats voted anti-gay.
And of course, you’re not going to do anything about it, because if you criticize Democrats, they’ll stop liking you.
But of course, the fact that Republicans don’t like you, even though you criticize them constantly, is proof that they’re homophobic, because they should like you even when you criticize them.
Most gay people are on board for universal healthcare and the Republican PArty stands in firm opposition to National Single Payer. Most gay people disagree with GOP positions on many things from drug policy, to justice issues, and (although I have no idea why) to immigration.
So it’s OK to support and endorse homophobic Democrats because you agree with them on other issues, since being gay is not the only thing you should consider.
But, since some Republicans are homophobic, you must always oppose Republicans despite how you feel about their views on other issues, because being gay is the only thing you should consider.
Meanwhile, it’s OK for gays to claim they are working from within the Democrat Party, but if a gay does that in the Republican Party, they’re self-loathing.
posted by Pat on
That’s a false dichotomy. You could always try to stay and fight from within. There was a group called Republicans Against 8.
Republicans are 35% of the population of California, and Prop 8 passed. The problem is with both parties.
Attmay, there is certainly plenty of blame to go around to both parties. However, if only Democrats voted on Prop. 8, it would have failed overwhelmingly. If only Republicans voted on Prop. 8., it would have passed overwhelmingly. So as long as 1) stats similar to these occur for gay right issues and 2) there is no viable alternate party; one party is going to be more supported by gay persons than the other.
But there is some good news. Younger people were more opposed to Prop. 8. Also, McCain, while more anti-gay than his opponent IMO, has been more pro-gay than previous Republican canddiates for president. Apparently, he received 27% of the gay vote from what I heard. So there’s some progress here. All is not lost.
posted by David Hearne on
And of course, you’re not going to do anything about it, because if you criticize Democrats, they’ll stop liking you.
I’m pretty sure I have never chosen an action based on that.
But of course, the fact that Republicans don’t like you, even though you criticize them constantly, is proof that they’re homophobic, because they should like you even when you criticize them.
Actually, the anti-gay plank in their official party platform is better proof.
So it’s OK to support and endorse homophobic Democrats because you agree with them on other issues, since being gay is not the only thing you should consider.
I don’t think I have ever supported or endorsed a homophobic Democrat. I believe that my comments were directed at a percentage of Democratic voters who IMO aren’t playing for the whole team.
But, since some Republicans are homophobic, you must always oppose Republicans despite how you feel about their views on other issues, because being gay is the only thing you should consider.
It’s a cost benefit ratio. It’s the rare Republican politician who is worth the trust or bet. Maybe when they stop meeting with the neoklans, then I’ll reconsider.
Meanwhile, it’s OK for gays to claim they are working from within the Democrat Party, but if a gay does that in the Republican Party, they’re self-loathing.
Justify your existence any way you like. It won’t change what you are actually doing.
posted by thelea draganic on
I am upset about this erroneous finger pointing at African-Americans regarding Proposition 8. Why are you so quick to believe whatever you hear? If someone told me 70 percent of gay people voted against Obama my first thought would be, excuse me Jesus, that is crap! I don’t believe it! This political year was fraught with right wing lies. Bear that in mind.
“Religious organizations that support Proposition 8 include the Roman Catholic Church], Knights of Columbus, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) a group of Evangelical Christians led by Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson, American Family Association, Focus on the Family[and the National Organization for Marriage Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, California’s largest, has also endorsed the measure. The Bishops of the California Catholic Conference released a statement supporting the proposition. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) has publicly supported the proposition and encouraged their membership to support it, by asking its members to donate money and volunteer time. The First Presidency of the church announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter read in every congregation. Latter-day Saints have provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California. About 45% of out-of-state contributions to Protect Marriage.com has come from Utah, over three times more than any other state.”
Still, even though gays were fighting to preserve a basic right, it was the anti-equality side in California that seemed to have the most fervor. A symbolic low point for the gay side came on Oct. 13, when the Sacramento Bee ran a remarkable story about Rick and Pam Patterson, a Mormon couple of modest means – he drives a 10-year-old Honda Civic, she raises their five boys – who had withdrawn $50,000 from their savings account and given it to the pro-8 campaign. “It was a decision we made very prayerfully,” Pam Patterson, 48, told the Bee’s Jennifer Garza. “Was it an easy decision? No. But it was a clear decision, one that had so much potential to benefit our children and their children.
posted by David Hearne on
thelea,
The anger with the black evangelicals is because they voted Democratic AND anti-gay. We didn’t expect any better from the Republicans because the anti-gay groups are GOP identified and brag about being its core.
The finger pointing is not erroneous and it is not a lie. It’s also not determined simply by exit polling. Precinct results prove the situation to be true. It’s unpleasant, but whether one thinks we should pursue this through aggressive politics or diplomatic influence, being in denial about the situation will not help.
Black people may be only 7% of the population of California, but as they are almost exclusive Democratic voters, and Democrats and Republicans split the vote fairly evenly at any given time, then the impact of black voters is doubled in Democratic interests. If we are counting on an election being close, then black voters represent 14% of the Democratic vote.
Both California’s Prop 8 and Florida’s Amendment 2 passed by a small percentage of votes. IN Florida the precinct maps show that the precincts which are nearly 100% black are solid YES. But we need to consider more than race because the precincts which are also black but not poor were solid No. We also know that the black evangelical churches were meeting with the Yes organizers, and we know that the ministers of these churches were promoting Yes.
So in a way, you are correct. It’s not about being black, it’s about being poor and black. And that leads us to ask what is different between poor blacks and middle class or well off blacks.
Real estate. Fear. It is easily demonstrated that poor urban black people view the gay community as white. And they view it as a threat, because white gay men are well known as urban pioneers who will move into poorer areas which the black community views as being “historically black”, places which were largely abandoned by white people 50-75 years ago. It really doesn’t matter that there are gay black people who do the same thing because they are not a visible threat. In almost any city in the country, you can find not only fear but organized resistance (in black churches as well) to gentrification and “displacement” which is viewed as a white invasion of black community.
We have a lot of work to do.