Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Why Gay Marriage Was Defeated in California


Chicopee John

Recommended Posts

Off of Yahoo.com

 

Nov. 4 may have been a joyous day for liberals, but it wasn't a great day for lesbians and gays. Three big states - Arizona, California and Florida - voted to change their constitutions to define marriage as a heterosexuals-only institution. The losses cut deep on the gay side. Arizona had rejected just such a constitutional amendment only two years ago. It had been the first and only state to have rebuffed a constitutional ban on marriage equality. In Florida, where the law requires constitutional amendments to win by 60%, a marriage amendment passed with disturbing ease, 62.1% to 37.9%.

 

 

And then there was California. Gay strategists working for marriage equality in this election cycle had focused most of their attention on that state. Losing there dims hopes that shimmered brightly just a few weeks ago - hopes that in an Obama America, straight people would be willing to let gay people have the basic right to equality in their personal relationships. It appears not.

 

 

The California vote was close but not razor-thin: as of 10 a.m. P.T., with 96.4% of precincts reporting, gays had lost 52.2% to 47.8%. Obama did not suffer the much-discussed "Bradley effect" this year, but it appears that gay people were afflicted by some version of it. As of late October, a Field Poll found that the pro-gay side was winning 49% to 44%, with 7% undecided. But gays could not quite make it to 49% on Election Day, meaning a few people may have been unwilling to tell pollsters that they intended to vote against equal marriage rights.

 

 

Gays are used to losing these constitutional amendment battles - as I said, Arizona was the only exception - but gay activists cannot claim they didn't have the money to wage the California fight. According to an analysis of the most recent reports from the California secretary of state, the pro-equality side raised an astonishing $43.6 million, compared with just $29.8 million for those who succeeded in keeping gays from marrying. The money the gay side raised is surprising for two reasons: first, the cash-Hoover known as the Obama campaign was sucking down millions of dollars a day from the nation's liberals. Many gays expected it to be difficult to raise money to fight Proposition 8 and its plan to outlaw same-sex marriage from Democrats eager to give to Obama and to the outside 527 groups supporting him. As recently as August, one of the nation's top gay political givers told me that he expected the gay side to raise no more than $25 million.

 

 

But a series of high-profile Hollywood donations, as well as a frantic, nationwide push for gays to get out their checkbooks, turned out to be quite successful in the short term. East Coast gays had been lulled into inaction by the Oct. 10 Connecticut Supreme Court decision granting gay couples the right to marry - a decision that hadn't required gays to write a single check. But gay people in Los Angeles and San Francisco cajoled and shamed their Eastern friends into opening their wallets. Thousands of California gay couples got married in the past few weeks, and I didn't see a single invitation to a gay ceremony that didn't include a plea to donate to the pro-equality campaign in lieu of buying wedding gifts.

 

 

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."

 

 

You could argue that marriage equality has little to do with children, but Patterson seemed to speak to Californians' inchoate phobias about gays and kids. On the Friday before the Bee story appeared, a group of San Francisco first-graders was taken to city hall to see their lesbian teacher marry her partner. Apparently the field trip was a parent's idea - not the teacher's - but the optics of the event were terrible for the gay side. It seemed like so much indoctrination.

 

 

That news came around the same time the pro-amendment forces were running a devastating ad showing a self-satisfied San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom shouting wild-eyed at a rally that same-sex marriage was inevitable "whether you like it or not." The announcer then said darkly, "It's no longer about tolerance. Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory." Many fence sitters were turned off by Newsom's arrogance; blogger Andrew Sullivan attributed mid-October polls against the gay side to the "Newsom effect."

 

 

Gays came back in some polls, but they couldn't pull out a win. Part of the reason is that Obama inspired unprecedented numbers of African Americans to vote. Polls show that black voters are more likely to attend church than whites and less likely to be comfortable with equality for gay people. According to CNN, African Americans voted against marriage equality by a wide margin, 69% to 31%. High turnout of African Americans in Florida probably help explain that state's lopsided vote to ban same-sex weddings.

 

 

Gays did win some victories yesterday. A new openly gay member of Congress, Jared Polis of Colorado, will go to the House in January. And thanks in part to the Cabinet, the group of [a {e}]lite gay political donors I wrote about recently, Democrats took the New York senate. The entire New York legislature is now in Democratic hands, and New York's governor, David Paterson, is one of the nation's most eloquent pro-marriage-equality representatives. He is also, by the way, African American. Perhaps he can help bridge the gap between gays and blacks that widened on Nov. 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could argue that marriage equality has little to do with children, but Patterson seemed to speak to Californians' inchoate phobias about gays and kids.

 

For those of you who haven't seen any of the Yes on 8 ads, they were ridiculous, to say the least. But, California has a ton of cals, T's, Bunker's, Billyjacks, etc., that fell for scare tactics hook, line and sinker. T truly believes gays are out to rape kids. He has said this over and over again...

 

The Pepperdine lawyer dude is just incredible...it almost embarrasses me to have gotten a degree there.

 

"Guess what I learned in school today!"

 

Newsom, admittedly, didn't help their cause...

 

"Whether you like it or not!"

 

On the other hand, the fake "Mac vs. PC" ad campaign supplied by No on Prop 8 was fantastic:

 

Yes vs. No

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could argue that marriage equality has little to do with children, but Patterson seemed to speak to Californians' inchoate phobias about gays and kids.

 

For those of you who haven't seen any of the Yes on 8 ads, they were ridiculous, to say the least. But, California has a ton of cals, T's, Bunker's, Billyjacks, etc., that fell for scare tactics hook, line and sinker. T truly believes gays are out to rape kids. He has said this over and over again...

 

The Pepperdine lawyer dude is just incredible...it almost embarrasses me to have gotten a degree there.

 

"Guess what I learned in school today!"

 

Newsom, admittedly, didn't help their cause...

 

"Whether you like it or not!"

 

On the other hand, the fake "Mac vs. PC" ad campaign supplied by No on Prop 8 was fantastic:

 

Yes vs. No

 

 

Any time somebody says that people HAVE to do something (mandated), you should expect a backlash.

 

In all due respect, why didn't you identify the obvious HUGE Black voting block in your condemnation of why the measure didn't pass? Was that a 'miss' or something you'd rather not confront?

 

Bottom line is that Newsome probably blew it. Pun intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all due respect, why didn't you identify the obvious HUGE Black voting block in your condemnation of why the measure didn't pass? Was that a 'miss' or something you'd rather not confront?

 

There are a ton of groups who are vehemently anti-gay (black, latino for example). This isn't news.

 

Prop 8 was voted Yes in Los Angeles County, this should have been one clue as to why.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

11.0% African American

44.56% of the population are Hispanic or Latino of any race

 

There is no real reason to deny this. But, I'd argue it isn't as much a cultural phenomenon as it is a religious one. These are two church-going populations, to be sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all due respect, why didn't you identify the obvious HUGE Black voting block in your condemnation of why the measure didn't pass? Was that a 'miss' or something you'd rather not confront?

 

There are a ton of groups who are vehemently anti-gay (black, latino for example). This isn't news.

 

Prop 8 was voted Yes in Los Angeles County, this should have been one clue as to why.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

11.0% African American

44.56% of the population are Hispanic or Latino of any race

 

There is no real reason to deny this. But, I'd argue it isn't as much a cultural phenomenon as it is a religious one. These are two church-going populations, to be sure.

 

>>According to CNN, African Americans voted against marriage equality by a wide margin, 69% to 31%. High turnout of African Americans in Florida probably help explain that state's lopsided vote to ban same-sex weddings.>>

 

 

Sure, Black and Hispanic people are very Christian. As these populations reproduce at above-average rates, Prop. 8 could be harder to pass in the future than it was now.

 

I appreciate your elaboration RE: Hispanics as I am sure you are correct.

 

Are they Black people who happen to go to church or are they Church-goers who happen to be Black?

 

I guess you chose the latter. Enough wiggle room for liberals to avoid confronting a potentially uneasy fact of life (for them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they Black people who happen to go to church or are they Church-goers who happen to be Black?

 

What's the difference?

 

I guess you chose the latter. Enough wiggle room for liberals to avoid confronting a potentially uneasy fact of life (for them).

 

I didn't choose either, John. Don't lump me in what you think I should be saying...

 

In fact, I don't see a difference between the two options you give me. I am not a churchgoer (obviously), but from what I understand, for folks who are avid chuchgoers, being Christian is as important and ingrained as being black...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes, Newsom "blew" it, as well. But, as I pointed out yesterday, he does pull decent wool. icon_e_smile.gif

 

Out of context, mz the pussy and you know it.

 

Hmmmmmmmm, I wonder if I can make this my computer wall paper.

 

Haha. I learned it from watching WSS operate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...