The Washington Blade reports:
Terry Leftgoff, a gay California-based political consultant who worked on previous campaigns against anti-gay initiatives, said the "No on 8" campaign had "a slow, mismanaged campaign strategy that was a series of blunders."
"It was clear there was a minimal ground operation and an extremely ineffective media campaign, both of which are vital to any campaign's success," he said. ...
"Numerous volunteers were turned away by 'No on Prop 8' on Election Day because there was no real [get out the vote] strategy," he said. ...
Leftgoff also criticized the "No on 8" campaign for its limited outreach to black and Latino voters.
As we've noted, LGBT dollars and activism on behalf of the Obama campaign dwarfed efforts to fight the anti-gay marriage props in California, Florida and Arizona, and the successful initiative to ban adoptions by gay couples in Arkansas.
Exit polls showed about 70 percent of black voters approved of California's Prop 8, and one of the best observations in the Blade piece is from author/activist Robin Tyler:
"Coalition politics does not mean we get to fight for your rights and you get to vote our civil rights away," she said. "That's not coalition politics - that's prejudice and fear and discrimination."
In the wake of the California defeat, there have been ongoing protests against the Mormons for funding pro-Prop 8 ads and get out the vote efforts. Rick Warren's evangelical Saddleback (mega) Church was also targeted. For the most part, that's understandable and positive (although certainly not the infantile mailing of faux white powder pretend terrorism, if indeed that was done by angry gays, which has not been demonstrated).
But LGBT leaders (such as they are) seem at a loss when it comes to anti-gay African Americans. Having failed to reach out to such a resolutely Democratic voting constituency, which turned out in record-breaking number to support Obama, activists have avoided (as far as I can see) organizing protests against anti-gay African American churches.
Protesting against Mormons, after all, doesn't raise those difficult politically correct issues - especially when LGBT progressives (black and white) seem quick to attribute criticism of black voters to gay white racism. (For another critical view of the gay protests and "the vile and sickening displays of racism displayed by gay demonstrators," check out this post over at the Classical Values blog.)
More. The Obama-quoting pro Prop 8 robocall. This deserves much more attention.
Furthermore. I guess Candorville is just another example of "racial scape-goating."
28 Comments for “Learning from Our Mistakes?”
posted by JIMG on
If 70% of black people voted for proposition 8, then I’m going to be angry at that 70%. If I expected more understanding from a people who have suffered such terrible discrimination then I am disppointed in those people and will justifiably say so. If I have always supported the fair treatment of ALL people, including blacks, and then find that they (or at least 70%) have voted against fairness for me, I am going to be angry and I will tell them so, and why.
All of this pointing out of the most notorious behavior of some gay activists, to me, is masking the real issue of why gays were discriminated by those groups who SHOULD KNOW BETTER. That is the real elephant in to room to my mind.
And to now be labeled racist, because I am expressing my anger and dismay at being treated unfairly by others, only confirms, to me at any rate, that the political left has become morally and ethically corrupt. Despite all of their mistakes it is not lack of anything on the part of the No on 8 Campaign which lead to this vote, by the 70% black vote or any other group.
The amendment was in plain language and anyone with half a brain and an ability to read could figure out exactly what it all meant. Let’s assign responsiblity where it belongs.
posted by BobN on
The 70% figure comes from an exit poll using a statistically insignificant 284 black voters. We don’t know what precinct or precincts they were polled at. While I don’t doubt that many black voters — especially new voters — voted for Prop 8, I really think we should wait for a precinct by precinct analysis before accepting the 70% figure.
I live in a SF neighborhood that has been historically black but is now quite mixed and gentrifying. Still, about half the population is black. The local Obama office was plastered with No-on-8 signs. There wasn’t a single Yes-on-8 sign in the neighborhood. The vote went heavily against Prop 8.
SFGate, the web portal which carries much of the SF Chronicle’s content (our only serious newspaper anymore), had an article showing the vote across the City’s precincts. A few voted for Prop 8, mostly neighborhoods of Chinese Americans with high (mostly Catholic) church attendance, ones with high numbers of recent Chinese and other East Asian immigrants, and the City’s most heavily black neighborhood. NONE of these areas approached 70% approval.
While I believe it’s possible that the East Bay’s and SoCal’s larger, more distinctly mono-ethnic neighborhoods might be quite different and much more homophobic, I still have trouble with the 70% figure.
posted by Jorge on
To me it’s pretty obvious that black homophobia causes gay racism. I’m not convinced it’s the other way around. Most of the time the race card is played by someone who’s black, it’s a paranoid play.
posted by Bobby on
“To me it’s pretty obvious that black homophobia causes gay racism.”
—True, but don’t forget some gays may have been racist before they came out of the closet.
“if I expected more understanding from a people who have suffered such terrible discrimination then I am disppointed in those people and will justifiably say so”
—That’s what sucks about being a liberal (if you are one), you give a bunch of minorities your support only to get nothing back.
There are efforts in several states to ban affirmative action. I see no reason why minorities that have equal rights in this country deserve special rights.
Gays need to ask themselves: are blacks better than me? Are they superior? Are they entitled to more than what I have? And then vote in favor of banning affirmative action and other special rights as soon as those petitions come up.
posted by Attmay on
I was against Affirmative Action and illegal immigration (and amnesty for illegals) before the vote on Prop 8. Hopefully this will get more gays to rethink their positions.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Every picture and every video of these protests says that the gay community is EXACTLY the way I’ve described it in my many posts. I have never seen so many cases of arrested development in one place. The gay community will use any excuse to make a rainbow flag and put on an Amy Winehouse wig. How many of these protesters were out, not on behalf of traditional marriage, but looking for that night’s hookup? How many chanted “Marriage rights now” and then went home with a stranger who had a cool-looking sign? Do you see the disconnect here? Do you see why the world doesn’t think the gay community is sincere about traditional values?
In the history of the world, I don’t think that homosexuals were all that oppressed until the last half of the 20th century when they brought oppression and victimization on themselves with Stonewall and the subsequent Pride movement which created a nearly perfect backlash. This nationwide protest is just one more celebration of negative stereotypes which will result in an ever-widening spiral of self-created prejudice until we actually DO have to wear pink triangles in public. Thanks, guys. Please go home now.
posted by tony on
maybe we should re-vote on the rights of blacks to vote. or slavery. let them know how it feels in this century.
posted by Jorge on
Of course, a lot of people (and I’m one of them BTW) think granting gay marriage when civil unions are a viable alternative is itself a case “special special rights).
What’s amazing to me is that some people are still trying to guilt-trip gays into being sympathetic to the African American race card when it’s against their better judgment. I have long believed that the take offense defensiveness practiced by minorities in this country shuts down free and open dialogue and hurts everyone in the long run. I’m sure that’s one of the reasons there wasn’t much outreach toward black and latino voters, because we’d both wind up at each other’s throats.
Anyway, it’s clear Ashpenatz is looking at different pictures and I was, and saw a different protest than I did. What I saw was a hopelessly Obama-smitten and liberal crowd, but otherwise a fairly diverse group with a good number of straight allies to boot.
posted by Craig2 on
You may be right about straight African American homophobia. However, I don’t share your scepticism about the utility of protests against the Mormons.
In the case of mobilising the African-American Christian Right, and fundamentalist voters, the bankrolls come from predominantly white conservative religious denominations/faiths.
Without that money, it’s difficult to mobilise ethnic minority religious conservatives, unless they’re relatively affluent.
We had something similar down here a few years ago. Destiny Church, a largely Maori/Pacific Island fundamentalist church, campaigned against lesbian and gay civil unions, then tried to launch two fundamentalist political parties. In both cases, they failed. It seemed to be a case of exaggerated claims of mobilisational scale versus
poverty of the group that was being mobilised, leading to diminished consequences.
That, and NZ Maori and Pacific Islanders don’t seem to be as proprietorial about oppression
as many straight African-Americans seem to be…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Pat on
How many of these protesters were out, not on behalf of traditional marriage, but looking for that night’s hookup? How many chanted “Marriage rights now” and then went home with a stranger who had a cool-looking sign? Do you see the disconnect here? Do you see why the world doesn’t think the gay community is sincere about traditional values?
So you already decided, Ashpenaz, that some of the gay protesters hooked up with another protester. And from that, your world view of things has clicked on automatic. A nasty, bad habit of we humans, that we should try to get rid of. But anyway, I imagine some may have hooked up. But as many have noted, straight people have joined the protests. I imagine they don’t want to marry one of the same sex either, but yet they were supportive of people who do. So, in other words, what’s wrong for people pushing for freedom and equality, even if the particular right doesn’t suit them? Sounds pretty unselfish to me.
I was in San Diego this weekend, and I saw a protest that was organized, and pretty adamant about what they wanted. And peaceful. I have no idea if any of these persons hooked up with another person in the rally, or not. Then again, I was at the bar with a straight guy who asked the bartender about what club to go to. When he left, he told the bartender that he hoped he got lucky. Ashpenaz, I wonder if this means he shouldn’t support straight people from marrying.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But as many have noted, straight people have joined the protests. I imagine they don’t want to marry one of the same sex either, but yet they were supportive of people who do. So, in other words, what’s wrong for people pushing for freedom and equality, even if the particular right doesn’t suit them? Sounds pretty unselfish to me.
Of course, most of the straight people attending were members of International ANSWER, the anti-American, anti-military, anti-Semitic leftist group that looks for any reason to make a scene and protest.
Not that this is the first time gay and lesbian liberals have sold the community out to support their leftist hatemonger friends, but it is starting to get tiresome. Must they continually associate gay and lesbian people with those who, like ANSWER’s founder Ramsey Clark, insist that Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic were innocent and that Hamas and Hizbollah are perfectly rational in their desire to wipe all Jews from the planet?
posted by Ashpenaz on
I have a theory that many of the straights who stand with gays also want to overthrow traditional marriage. These straights want open relationships and multiple partners to become the norm, and they think that backing “gay marriage” will change the standards of marriage for everybody. There are many straights who don’t want the responsibility that comes with marriage any more than the gay community does. Rather than bringing same-sex relationships into the traditional standards of lifelong sexual exclusivity, many gays and straights are working together to undermine traditional standards. So, yes, this is the sort of protest where even straight guys like your friend can get lucky. But those heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to promote a higher ideal for sexual relationships are not so lucky.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I have a theory that many of the straights who stand with gays also want to overthrow traditional marriage. These straights want open relationships and multiple partners to become the norm, and they think that backing “gay marriage” will change the standards of marriage for everybody.
That fact is shown very nicely by the Beyond Marriage statement — as well as the official position of the ACLU, which is the lead organization challenging Proposition 8, that plural marriage bans are unconstitutional and should be abolished.
Not to mention the ACLU’s support of NAMBLA.
posted by Attmay on
Two words:
Ashley Madison.
They advertise on TV. Heterosexuals have some nerve thinking they can decide who can get married.
I reject the “Beyond Marriage” statement.
posted by Pat on
I have a theory that many of the straights who stand with gays also want to overthrow traditional marriage.
My theory is that straights who support freedom and equality are of the full spectrum regarding their own personal relationships. But the people I know personally who support same sex marriage do not support polygamy, adultery, nor pedophilia. They do not belong to Beyond Marriage or NAMBLA. And the ones that belong to ACLU do not support all of the positions of ACLU.
So, yes, this is the sort of protest where even straight guys like your friend can get lucky.
For clarity, I don’t know if this person went to the protest, and we weren’t together at the bar long enough to become buds. And I didn’t see him later that evening or the next morning to see if he got lucky or not.
That fact is shown very nicely by the Beyond Marriage statement — as well as the official position of the ACLU, which is the lead organization challenging Proposition 8, that plural marriage bans are unconstitutional and should be abolished.
Not to mention the ACLU’s support of NAMBLA.
NDT, the ACLU supports NAMBLA right to free speech, as opposed to their activities. As for ACLU’s stand on plural marriage, the link on the evolution of their position was rather interesting. Funny how they supported, apparently Mormons, in their fight to re-establish polygamy, while the Mormons were adamantly against same sex marriage. Then again, despite organizations like Beyond Marriage, most gay persons I know who support same sex marriage oppose polygamy.
posted by grendel on
I went down for the Seattle protest. I saw a group with the sign “straight republicans for equal marriage” Their participation was warmly received.
But then they were probably only in it to get laid, and likely had a secret agenda to force everyone to enter into plural marriages with children, so we have to be suspicious.
posted by Ashpenaz on
So there is simply no way that the “gay marriage” movement could be about changing the meaning of traditional marriage to include not only gays, but also multiple partners, open relationships, and serial monogamy for straights as well? It couldn’t be that straights and gays are working together to undermine the traditional meaning of marriage so no one will have to be restricted by that pesky lifelong monogamy thing which gets in the way of so much happiness?
posted by Patrick on
“It couldn’t be that straights and gays are working together to undermine the traditional meaning of marriage so no one will have to be restricted by that pesky lifelong monogamy thing which gets in the way of so much happiness?”
Why would gays and their allies have to do that when the folks in the “Bible Belt” are doing just that all on their own?
HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOO highest divorce rate, nothing life long there!I should add that Massachusetts has one of the LOWEST divorce rates and Gay Marriage.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
NDT, the ACLU supports NAMBLA right to free speech, as opposed to their activities.
No, the ACLU supports NAMBLA’s publishing, pushing, and using step-by-step manuals outlining how to lure in and rape children, then to commit fraud and leave the country to cover your tracks.
Funny how they supported, apparently Mormons, in their fight to re-establish polygamy
The funny part about this is that the mainstream Mormon church has repudiated polygamy multiple times, yet gay and lesbian activists insist on holding them responsible for the actions of small groups like the FLDS that have been excommunicated and thrown out of the mainstream Mormon church.
Meanwhile, though, these same gay and lesbian activists insist that gays and lesbians should not be held responsible for the actions of small groups that want reduced age-of-consent laws, that dress children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs, and that demand that polygamy, brother-sister relationships, and others be legitimized with marriage — none of which have been repudiated by mainstream gay groups.
posted by Bobby on
“No, the ACLU supports NAMBLA’s publishing, pushing, and using step-by-step manuals outlining how to lure in and rape children, then to commit fraud and leave the country to cover your tracks.”
—It’s still free speech. There are books that tell you how to smuggle drugs into the country, how to cheat on your taxes, how to get away with murder. how to build a nuclear bomb, etc.
I hate NAMBLA, I support the death penalty for pedophiles, or at the very least, castration. But speech is speech and actions are actions
posted by Pat on
NDT, what can I tell you. The First Amendment ain’t always pretty. If you support amending the First Amendment, I’ll listen on what you say on how to amend it.
The funny part about this is that the mainstream Mormon church has repudiated polygamy multiple times, yet gay and lesbian activists insist on holding them responsible for the actions of small groups like the FLDS that have been excommunicated and thrown out of the mainstream Mormon church.
I thought my part was funnier.
Meanwhile, though, these same gay and lesbian activists insist that gays and lesbians should not be held responsible for the actions of small groups that want reduced age-of-consent laws, that dress children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs, and that demand that polygamy, brother-sister relationships, and others be legitimized with marriage — none of which have been repudiated by mainstream gay groups.
Yep, all bad stuff. But while where piling on all bad types of marriage, can you also agree with me that marriage should be banned in which one or both parties are under 18, even if the woman or girl is pregnant?
So there is simply no way that the “gay marriage” movement could be about changing the meaning of traditional marriage to include not only gays, but also multiple partners, open relationships, and serial monogamy for straights as well? It couldn’t be that straights and gays are working together to undermine the traditional meaning of marriage so no one will have to be restricted by that pesky lifelong monogamy thing which gets in the way of so much happiness?
Ashpenaz, I’m sure that there are gays and straights that work to undermine the traditional meaning of marriage, and don’t want monogamy, even if they get married. Actually, I approve of changing some of the traditions of marriage. These include: subjugation of the woman (or women), men getting to marry more than one wife at a time, direct or implied approval of beating the wife, the rich and powerful (and only them) having mistresses with tacit approval, and restriction to opposite sex. I think we can agree that those are traditions we can all do without.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Yes, the tradition of marriage can be improved. There are two ways to go about that:
1. Bring homosexuals into the already established traditions without changing the fundamentals of those traditions, i. e., lifelong sexual exclusivity. Help bring all couples into a deeper understanding of what those traditions mean.
2. Work on undermine the fundamentals of the tradition by working to include open relationships, multiple partners, and serial monogamy under the word “marriage.” Make sure the need for maturity, responsibility, and stability is reduced for everyone so that nobody, gay or straight, ever, ever has to grow up.
These two camps can never be reconciled, and its time we all admitted it. I suspect those marching in the streets for “gay marriage” are marching for #2. Those of us who want #1 wouldn’t be marching. We’d be living our lives so that we don’t have to march.
posted by Attmay on
1. Bring homosexuals into the already established traditions without changing the fundamentals of those traditions, i. e., lifelong sexual exclusivity. Help bring all couples into a deeper understanding of what those traditions mean.
This is the only way that “straights” will ever support gay marriage. Supporting this path rather than the second one is no stretch for me. But those of us who want #1 need to march. This is worth fighting for.
posted by David Skidmore on
If it is true that many black voters are against same-sex marriage, then it means that the likes of Stephen Miller will have to get off their lazy arses and convince them otherwise. It is very easy to be a carping, whingeing bore. It’s very easy to criticise black Americans (how radical, how cutting edge!).
It’s another thing to see a problem and do something about it. Miller and his supporters here seem particularly adept in telling other people what they should do but seem to have no idea how to strengthen the gay movement and how to campaign for things like same-sex marriage. That would require actual work.
posted by avee on
David Skidmore, Mr. Miller is a commentator/blogger. He is not receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from working gay people who expect him to use it to advance their rights. HRC and its cohorts are. And they chose to spend these funds, for the most part, getting out the vote for Obama, which as it turns out also helped to pass the anti-gay amendments.
Let’s view: Miller and IGF: commentators playing the necessary role of watchdog and critic. HRC and bedfellows, paid activists misusing their donations. Please review before posting again.
posted by Bobby on
“can you also agree with me that marriage should be banned in which one or both parties are under 18, even if the woman or girl is pregnant?”
—Straights will never agree to that. In some cases, a minor can become emancipated by a judge and enjoy all the rights of an adult. However, it is legal for a minor to get married with the consent of his parents. In Kentucky a 13 year old can get married, in most states it’s 16 or 17 I think.
Now, the things that make us look really bad is stories like this:
eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service After Lawsuit
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081119/us_nm/us_gay_marriage_eharmonystory/0,2933,454904,00.html
“Online dating service eHarmony has agreed to create a new website for gays and lesbians as part of a settlement with a gay man in New Jersey, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General said on Wednesday.”
This is worse than dressing your child in leather! Here you’re invading a company that was never created to cater to you. The founder of eharmony understands the dynamics between men and women, he knows as much about gay dating as I know about the clitoris.
And maybe that’s how straights perceive this gay marriage issue, maybe they see it as one of those fads that comes and goes away. The gay man that wants to join eharmony is simply out of his mind. He should try plentyoffish.com if he doesn’t like the meatmarket of gay.com
posted by HeadShakingVistor on
“In the history of the world, I don’t think that homosexuals were all that oppressed until the last half of the 20th century when they brought oppression and victimization on themselves with Stonewall”
Ashpenaz, ever heard of sodomy laws? They used to be enforced. For real. Before Stonewall.
posted by Pat on
—Straights will never agree to that. In some cases, a minor can become emancipated by a judge and enjoy all the rights of an adult. However, it is legal for a minor to get married with the consent of his parents. In Kentucky a 13 year old can get married, in most states it’s 16 or 17 I think.
Bobby, I assume that an emancipated minor still has to wait until 18 in order to vote, for example. And I question the judgment of any parent who consents to their underage child marrying. I’m not sure that straight persons support underage marriage, but maybe don’t feel strong enough to change the law. We did, however, see people react positively when the underage daughter of a candidate who got pregnant say that she would marry the father, instead of waiting until 18 to even consider such a decision. So maybe you’re right.