Even if we win prop 8, we will have lost the non gay vote

[dsc]

Prop 8 appears to be a close one. In an election night where I would have likely gone to bed early due to a Presidential blow out coupled with efficient local counting, I will likely be up late seeing if California decides if we are, or are not citizens. But say we win 52 to 48, which is better than I think likely. Assuming that 6% of the California vote comes from gays and that 90% of that vote is no, we will have a 5.4% to .6% margin or 4.8%. That would mean a loss in the non gay vote. In one of the most liberal, gay friendly states, the best we can hope for is such a narrow loss among non gay voters that gay voters carry us to the finish line. What a let down, to say the least.

Truth be told, I thought the far right made a huge mistake insisting on this vote. I thought we would win comfortably and even win the non gay vote, putting this issue to rest. Instead we might well lose and are all but certain to lose the non gay vote. If the win is narrow enough, the right can just try again in a lesser turnout election. How did this happen?

Well, first, our ads are nearly all disasters. Where are the African Americans? Not one, single solitary African American in any ad despite poll after poll showing that they are the voters we are most in trouble with. African American voters, especially young ones, are reachable here. Time after time I have had my African American students surprise me with being at least OK with my being gay. Would they vote against a NC version of issue 8? Truth be told I have no idea. I think some would. I think more of California's would if we targetted them. Kanye West could be in an ad. Maxine Waters could be in an ad. Halle Berry could be in an ad.

Secondly, the Mormons provided a bucket load of money. Presumedly this is perfectly legal. That said, it should be an issue. Every single ad should point out the Mormon money going to buy this election. That a church which believed in polygamy can get away with this is an outrage. Taking marriage advice from Mormons is akin to taking decorating advice from the designer of Gitmo.

Thirdly, voting on minority rights is always a mistake. California needs to give serious thought to the notion that fundamental rights of minority can be desided in referenda. Imagine if we had let the South do that in the 60's. Interracial marriage would likely still be banned in wide swaths of the south.

I still hope and think we will see a narrow victory. But it will be a narrow one and at some level, a hollow one.

[msongs]

1. a win for equality is NOT hollow. geez its irrelevant who votes YES on 8 if it loses....

blacks, mormons, christians, latino catholics, whites of any kind...who the hell cares what they think as long as prop 8
LOSES.

equality rocks.

have a nice day and keep up the good fight.

Msongs

[dsc]

2. actually for a minority, it isn't

If the win is narrow enough and the loss among non gay voters decisive enough, it will be seen as illegitimate and thus a new referendum will be seen as a legitimate option.

[Q3JR4]

9. We just need to hold back the tide

this one time. If the amendment is defeated by 1% or even .1% we still win. If the vote is seen as illegitimate, then I'm okay with them (whomever "they" may be) trying again. The soonest that could happen would be two years from now, two years in which we have full and equal marriage rights. For those of you not keeping track that's long enough for people in California to grow comfortable with our full inclusion into society.

I say, as has happened in the past, if they loose this battle they won't ever win it again.

Q3JR4.

[Ms. Toad]

3. Given the disastrous election 4 years ago,

I will be thrilled with even a narrow victory. It will be an indication that we are making progress toward universal marriage rights. The more states that have unassailable marriage rights, the more the rest of the country will see that the world does not end because we can marry - and in a few years there will be a Loving v. Virginia like case and marriage will become universal.

Granted - there should never be a popular vote fundamental rights. Given that there is one, I will be glad to have a victory that gives California and the rest of the country at least another year to get used to our marriages.

[dsc]

5. How is Ohio going?

Has Strickland been good on gay issues?

[Ms. Toad]

7. Supportive, but safe.

He has made high level appointments of openly gay individuals, and signed an executive order banning discrimination against GLBT state employees. He has been more cautious about supporting wider protections in light of the marriage discrimination amendment.

On a positive note, "Jane Doe" of In re the adoption of Jane Doe cast her first ballot this year - and took the opportunity to vote against the judge that denied her non-biological mom's request to adopt her. I know, because she is my daughter and when I dropped her off at college this afternoon we spent an hour or so talking about candidates and issues; I have her ballot ready to drop off at the county board of elections this week. (In re Jane Doe is the only appellate level second parent adoption case in Ohio - rejected expressly because the state did not recognize her parents' marriage.)

[cbayer]

4. I think it will be a very significant victory if we defeat this thing.

Powerful forces have come out to try and pass this, but I think many (and hopefully most) voters know in their heart of hearts that to constitutionally deny any group of people rights is not who we are.

If we win, we will have momentum. It will be rule changing.

I agree about the ad campaign. I am sorry that more celebrities didn't come out for this on their own dime. I only know that on the ground, when I talk to people one on one, they see the truth about this and vow to vote no.

I am the non-gay vote. You have not lost me. This will be meaningful.

:pals:

[Booster]

6. The No on 8 people should run ads that point out that this is not

just a gay issue; ALL single people are being discriminated against. Married people shouldn't have any more rights than anyone else, and there's over 1400 state and federal benefits they get that the rest of us don't get. I guarantee if we start pointing out that their benefits should be taken away from them they will have a light-bulb moment and finally see the light. They will vote only in their best interests. The No on 8 campaign has been handled really bad, and I hate to say it, but the Yes on 8 ad showing the mayor saying "like it or not, it's coming" probably did us more harm than anything else, and I know he's a good guy, but it was just on your face.

[GreenFiles]

8. Saw this video recently...

...and was inspired:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvfexvihri8

Sorry if it's a re-post. The 30-year anniversary of his death is coming up. :(

[Zuiderelle]

10. I see your point. But if it is defeated and brought back up again, there will be more potential for

donations in a non-presidential election year. I would have given more to "No on 8" than I did, if I wasn't strapped donating to Obama's campaign. If it comes up again in two years, I'll donate again, and more than I was able to this time.

[readmoreoften]

11. Not hollow. I want legal equality, not acceptance from the mob.

The mob also believes that creation and evolution should be taught side-by-side in school and the Saddam Hussein was connected to 9-11.