(Untitled)

Jul 27, 2009 13:00

Gay marriage advocates in California are saying they are probably not going to try to overturn Prop. 8 in the next general election, scheduled for 18 months from now. They have consulted "fellow major No on 8 donors" and political consultants, who advise against it. They have looked at the polls, which "really haven't moved at all" since November ( Read more... )

law, history, political science, politics, labor, gay rights

Leave a comment

Comments 4

fyellin July 27 2009, 19:11:44 UTC
The one flaw in your argument (alas) is that it's a lot harder to pass an amendment than it is to defeat one. To defeat an amendment, you only need to spread FUD and the voters--bless their hearts--will vote No. Getting a "yes" vote is much harder.

The brilliance of Prop 8 is that the opponents essentially turned the election upside down. They managed to convince the voters that to preserve the status quo, they needed to vote "yes", and that a "no" vote would lead to an uncertain future.

So what has happened to California unions in the 10 years since Prop 226?

Reply

tim1965 July 27 2009, 19:25:35 UTC
I don't buy that analysis for a moment, sorry. The reasons why "Yes on 8" won are quite clear: They did far more face-to-face canvassing than the LGBTQ movement; they targeted weak-yes, undecided, and weak-no voters; they targeted moderate and weakly liberal cities rather than their base; they had a get-out-the-vote plan; their issue ads were direct, on point, and targeted directly to hot-button issues voters cared about (teaching kids gay sex in school; making their church marry gays; etc ( ... )

Reply


byzantinespy July 28 2009, 00:29:36 UTC
I'm behind you on this. I suppose the major donors to prevent Prop. 8 feel burned, but we're not going to achieve social change by sitting on our hands and waiting for attitudes to change for us.

Reply

tim1965 July 28 2009, 00:38:16 UTC
I'm not sure that the major donors to "No on 8" feel burned. I think they are, by nature, timid and terrified people. Their wealth, social status, and relationships with other wealthy heterosexuals are at risk when they become militant. So they naturally seek safety -- in this case, safety in poll numbers.

I had to laugh -- and I mean, belly laugh -- at some of the comments. Like the one "we have to wait for the Mormons to stop telling lies before we can move the electorate." HO HO HO! Like that's going to ever happen! Or the other boner: "We can't mount a campaign until we are already winning in the polls." ROTFL!!!!!!!!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up