Why Prop 8 Passed
I just received yet another mass e-mail from Lorri L. Jean of the LA Gay and Lesbian Center, whining about the “reprehensible role that the [Mormon] Church hierarchy played in directing members to fund the campaign of lies and deceit promoted by the Yes on 8 leaders.”
In her missive, she spent more time blaming her opponents’ campaign for its success than she did looking at her own team’s failures. Perhaps, she should take a gander at some of the sensible conservative blogs as we look with admiration on the Obama team’s amazing organization and take stock of the mistakes the McCain campaign made. Yeah, we’re bummed about the election, but we’re trying to figure out where our side went wrong.
That’s what Ms. Jean and other opponents should be doing now instead of venting at Mormons. Since they’re not going to look inward, let me try to do so for them.
First, their slogans just didn’t work. “Equality for All” doesn’t resonate with people outside social and political activist circles of the left. A later slogan, “Unfair and Wrong,” did little more than express anger at the initiative. It didn’t do anything to convince voters opposed to discrimination yet favoring the traditional understanding of marriage. If anything, it suggested people were wrong to believe that sexual difference is a defining aspect of marriage.
Indeed, I believe, the “No on 8″ campaign failed primarily because its leaders did not appreciate those who favor that traditional understanding not out of anti-gay animus but due to their belief that sexual difference is essential to marriage. Opponents of the initiative needed explain why we should expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and acknowledge that this expansion would indeed promote a social change.
Social change can be a good thing, but is frightening to some. You need to reassure those who might fear such change by showing how it is good for society and do so in a manner which shows respect for those who espouse the traditional understanding of marriage.
Instead of focusing on promoting social change, they, with help from ballot language provided by Attorney General Jerry Brown, contended the initiative’s passage would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, as if that “right’ had existed for generations, instead of having been mandated just six months ago by the State Supreme Court.
Had it not been for the court’s decision, it would have been much easier to defeat 8. Had the court ruled the other way, it would have deprived the “Yes” folks of their apparently quite effective line that “four judges ignored four million voters.â€
Those who spoke of the initiative “eliminating a right” failed to appreciate that most Americans don’t like courts resolving controversial social issues. And whether we like it or not, gay marriage is just such an issue.
Not only did the “no” campaign fail to appreciate people’s opposition to court intrusion, they failed to offer an argument which appealed to socially moderate citizens who respect, but are not beholden to, certain social conservative ideas. All too often, initiative opponents told us that those who do not see marriage as a right were bigoted, hateful or just plain mean-spirited.
As a gay conservative blogger, I heard from both sides and found the language of the “No” folks far more hostile than that of the “Yes’ folks.
The “No” side failed to make an affirmative case for gay marriage. Their stuff was invariably negative, attacking the initiative and demonizing its supporters. The attacks on the Mormon Church in the wake of the initiative’s passage are public manifestations of the vitriol I’d been reading in private e-mails before the election.
Such angry e-mails caused me to waver in my opposition to the initiative. If I, a gay man, wavered, how then would straight people, knowing fewer married gay couples, have reacted to similar efforts at suasion?
At the same time, the correspondence I received from the “Yes” folks almost always made clear that the codification of the traditional definition of marriage would not prevent the state from continuing to recognize same-sex domestic partnerships. They didn’t demonize gay people, merely insisted that marriage was a unique institution defined as the exclusive union between two individuals of different genders.
In short, the “No on 8″ campaign failed because its leaders failed to appreciate the legitimate concerns of gay marriage opponents. They saw this campaign as one to prevent voters from eliminating a right whereas many voters say it as one where they could weigh in on social change.
In the future, when the time comes to repeal this newly-enacted provision from the state constitution, we shouldn’t be afraid to talk about promoting social change. We just need be prepared to explain why we believe such social change is a good thing.
And we need leaders who don’t see social conservatives as they enemy whom we must demonize, but as potential allies whom we need to convince by the power of our arguments. It’s simply a question of making the case for gay marriage rather than against social conservatives.
A case for social change instead of a demand for rights.
31 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
when I was in tx there was a vote for gay marriage, but they attached stem cell research and abortion to it like it was all one issue! I couldn’t vote for it. Then the gay group was all hurt. It’s just as bad as churches lumping gay involvement with woman’s ordination and tossing out the liturgy. I find it very frustrating to say the least.
Comment by Tim — November 7, 2008 @ 9:16 pm - November 7, 2008
The main reason heterosexuals have nothing to fear: their marriages stand no chance of being invalidated at any time.
Many of them seem to believe that marriage is a zero-sum game. If gays have it, heterosexuals will lose it. For heterosexuals to keep it, gays must be denied it. That just isn’t so.
But gays who think marriage vows, once allowed, should be treated lightly are ruining it for everyone else. The fact remains that heterosexual marriage in this country is a mess. Heterosexuals treat it as being as disposable as soiled Pampers. And they are often involved in “open” marriages. That doesn’t make it any more right.
Comment by Attmay — November 7, 2008 @ 9:47 pm - November 7, 2008
Because when liberrals don’t get their way, they always blame everybody else and never look introspectively.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 7, 2008 @ 10:51 pm - November 7, 2008
GPW, awesome. Well done.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2008 @ 11:10 pm - November 7, 2008
GPW, YOU NEED TO BE THE FACE of those favoring same-sex marriage! You are right about most of those who voted for Prop. 8. We are not bigots. We know and love many gay and lesbian people. Some our members of our families. Many who voted for Prop. 8 may have done so with a heavy heart. Not hatred of gay and lesbians. There is a serious and nessecary conversation about a CONSERVATIVE case for same-sex marriage. But, when people tear apart people of faith the way the left-wing same-sex marriage advocates are, it seems like there is no place to start. But keep trying! And because we agree on so much, you may not change my mind, but make me think about my position on same-sex marriage.
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — November 7, 2008 @ 11:55 pm - November 7, 2008
Now it seems gay media whore John Aravosis is calling for a boycott of Utah to punish the Mormon Church.
I would simply remind people of the fact that media whore Aravosis seemingly has no problem breathlessly endorsing supporters of state constitutional amendments as “pro-gay”a dn “gay-supportive” when it suits him.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2008 @ 12:47 am - November 8, 2008
#5: “Now it seems gay media whore John Aravosis is calling for a boycott of Utah to punish the Mormon Church.”
LOL. The threat of losing that $ 398.25 in annual gay tourism revenue is sure to bring Utah to its knees.
Comment by Sean A — November 8, 2008 @ 1:12 am - November 8, 2008
I though that the Samuel L Jackson narrated ads shown late in the campaign were the most effective ones from the No on 8 side. But the message seemed blunted as the ad appeared to dwell just on those old prejudices and not draw a better connection with the present.
Comment by Pat Patterson — November 8, 2008 @ 2:44 am - November 8, 2008
Social change can be a good thing, but is frightening to some. You need to reassure those who might fear such change by showing how it is good for society and do so in a manner which shows respect for those who espouse the traditional understanding of marriage.
Could it just possibly be that those who espouse the traditional understanding of marriage simply remain unconvinced that same-sex marriage is of such a social benefit that it merits changing the definition of an ancient tradition to something far more general and, frankly, ultimately worthy of less reverence? Perhaps assuming your opponents are scared isn’t the best way to promote respect for them or engage them in a constructive debate. Judging from the behavior of the ‘No on 8′ campaign and the fallout from the election, perhaps the fear you should address is among those who agree with you.
Comment by Ignatius — November 8, 2008 @ 3:09 am - November 8, 2008
Great point ignatius, there is far too much assumption that those who disagree with gay marriage do so out of hate, fear, ignorance or bigotry. But GPW is still right that the debate needs to take place in terms of what gay marriage offers to society, not what society owes to gays because some people erroneously believe gay relationships are of exactly the same consequence as straight relationships.
Comment by American Elephant — November 8, 2008 @ 3:56 am - November 8, 2008
Holy cow! one made it past the filter!
Its like clearing a new level for the first time on a video game — Im not sure how I did it, but its a cause for celebration just the same.
Comment by American Elephant — November 8, 2008 @ 3:58 am - November 8, 2008
Both sides need to appreciate the fact that the margin is narrowing. As people seem more gays an lesbians living open, “normal” lives, their acceptance (not tolerance) of same-sex oriented persons grows, particularly among the younger generation.
As a liberal, in discussions of gay marriage, I’d always concentrated my calm, respectful conversations on the ways in which gay and lesbian couples are not protected in the same way as heterosexual married couples. The point American Elephant made about telling people what gay marriage could offer society in addition to traditional marriage is a point that had never dawned on me, and I must thank him or her for that, and will bring that to the table in local efforts to appeal to fair-minded individuals open to discussion.
Comment by J — November 8, 2008 @ 6:09 am - November 8, 2008
“Could it just possibly be that those who espouse the traditional understanding of marriage simply remain unconvinced that same-sex marriage is of such a social benefit that it merits changing the definition of an ancient tradition to something far more general and, frankly, ultimately worthy of less reverence? ”
This is exactly what the problem is. The vitriol has to be removed from the process. Also, the in your face kind of social change must be negotiated. I think many people don’t want their small children read stories such as “King and King.” This may mean that marriage is simply left out of the curriculum until middle or high school. Gays have to realize this is tough stuff for straights to accept. I think we have to talk about the parameters. I think it is fair and reasonable. I could go on and on, please do not misconstrue what I am saying. I am basically on your side.
Comment by Jane — November 8, 2008 @ 7:57 am - November 8, 2008
Emphasis added, answering the above comments. Let me further point out that in CA, we only need 51%.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 8, 2008 @ 8:36 am - November 8, 2008
Well said. If I were still in Cali, I probably would have been an ambivalent supporter of Prop. 8 who probably wouldn’t have voted for it had the California Supreme Court not stepped in and/or you had been running the No on 8 campaign.
I can’t speak for all young straight Christian conservatives, but I do think that we as a group tend not to view gay marriage as all that threatening. I think we tend to feel more threatened by courts that feel emboldened to enact huge cultural changes and by a GLBT movement that is uninterested in why religious organizations have any opposition to the changes they seek.
The GLBT movement has to understand who votes against gay marriage (e.g., for Prop.
and why they do it. When Prop. 8 wins even as a fairly moderate guy like John McCain loses California by a huge amount, you know it’s not just a bunch of hardcore right wingers voting for it. The GLBT movement has to figure out why this passes in blue states as well as red. You understand; they don’t.
Comment by cme — November 8, 2008 @ 9:10 am - November 8, 2008
#9 But GPW is still right that the debate needs to take place in terms of what gay marriage offers to society, not what society owes to gays…
Elephant, agreed and I meant to address that with:
“Could it just possibly be that those who espouse the traditional understanding of marriage simply remain unconvinced that same-sex marriage is of such a social benefit that it merits changing the definition of an ancient tradition…”
But the point of my post is to emphasize the fear exhibited toward faith, particularly the Mormon religion. I’m not a Mormon and consider much of all religions pure hokum, but if we compare statistics of Mormons with those of gays, I wonder who we need fear, if that’s a term we’re now injecting into the debate.
Comment by Ignatius — November 8, 2008 @ 10:23 am - November 8, 2008
#12 The vitriol has to be removed from the process.
Jane, you’re absolutely right. Removing patronizing assumptions about one’s opponents such as how fearful they are might begin to neutralize the atmosphere.
Comment by Ignatius — November 8, 2008 @ 10:32 am - November 8, 2008
Maybe if liberal gays would stop spewing their hatred for conservative gays and worked together on the issue the outcome may have been different. Same-sex marriage needs to framed differently showing how society benefits from committed couples of same and opposite gendered couples.
Comment by Sonya — November 8, 2008 @ 10:55 am - November 8, 2008
“The fact remains that heterosexual marriage in this country is a mess. Heterosexuals treat it as being as disposable as soiled Pampers.”
I don’t get this line of argument. Marriage is on the ropes, so gays should get involved as well??
Marriage is tough, very tough. Gender differences define marriage such that women pretty much dominate the institution. Wives are statistically the ones who file for divorce, they get custody of the children, and they get equal or more of the community property.
With marriages stacked against men, many men are choosing to not marry. Women haven’t exactly advocated for men in law/policy to make marriage more acceptable. Thus, couples are cohabitating as the first option. For myself, I’ve came from a tough divorce. I married again for my religious beliefs. If I were an atheist, I probably would not marry.
Coming back to gay marriage, I voted for Prop 8 because I was against this constant judicial creation of rights. The legislature or the people should decide. We should also improve upon the institution.
I see gay marriage as a trojan horse. It’s designed to undermine marriage further and it loses all meaning and social relevance as well as reverence.
Comment by Blah111 — November 8, 2008 @ 12:03 pm - November 8, 2008
I voted for Prop 8 for several reasons.
Number one: Because I believe that marriage is a sacred institution between men and women, and the simple fact is that the law prevents no one whatsoever from participating in this institution. Gays have precisely the same right to marry the opposite sex as anyone else. If they don’t want to, they don’t want to. Marriage remains marriage. The discrimination they claim simply does not exist. They are not shut out from the one man, one woman institution of marriage in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I wish a hell of a lot more of them would participate!
Number two: I strenuously object to judicial dictatorship.
Number three: Any claims that the institution of the legal fiction of “gay marriage” will have no effect on me are simply ludicrous. There is an obvious track record wherever it has been instituted. The age-old teachings of churches against homosexuality become (by force of law) “hate speech” and “discrimination”. Children are taught in school that there is nothing whatsoever wrong about homosexuality, and that whoever says otherwise is a retrograde bigot. Children in school are conditioned in various subtle ways to find homosexuality alluring. Etc. The behavior of outraged gays against the Mormons (both in the No on 8 commercials and in their protests/riots), and the strong financial support of the teachers unions for “No on 8″ only serves to confirm all of this for me. It is my conclusion, as an informed, socially aware, and serious Catholic, that the institution of this legal fiction will result in persecution of my Church and its members. It is my right as a voter to take this into consideration.
Number four: This whole fight over the word “marriage”, which already has a clear millenia-old meaning, is really a fight for coerced approval of the homosexual lifestyle. The fact is, I don’t approve. I am absolutely willing to live and let live in terms of homosexuals having any relationship they want, and privately calling it anything they want. But to hell if I’m not going to fight being forced by the state into calling a vice a virtue.
Number five: I believe that homosexuals have been offered an immense amount of compassion and tolerance over the last several decades. It appears that in exchange we are offered little more than threatening hate and outrage. It makes it very difficult for me not to want to thwart their holy cause.
Number six: Gay activists have attached themselves far too strongly to the whole panoply of left-wing causes. To the extent that the left wants to be a monolithic and revolutionary force, I am inclined to vote against it whenever and wherever I can.
Comment by Matteo — November 8, 2008 @ 1:49 pm - November 8, 2008
“The fact remains that heterosexual marriage in this country is a mess. Heterosexuals treat it as being as disposable as soiled Pampers.â€
And I am sure that people would favor the addition of a group that strongly supports monogamy, that comes out against promiscuity, and that loudly speaks of the virtues of fidelity, commitment, and values.
Which is everything that the gay community opposes.
Perhaps if you didn’t have gay liberals proudly proclaiming their infidelity to the national media and saying that it is “impractical” for gay men to be sexually monogamous since “men are pigs”, the climate would be significantly better.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2008 @ 3:00 pm - November 8, 2008
Dan, if the gayLeft didn’t use the LDSers as a scapecoat for why Prop 8 and other gay marriage proposals have failed, they’d have to look to themselves, their own tactics, strategies and arguments for explanation.
To do that would beg the question: “The gayLeft is doing something wrong?”
It’s time to nix gay marriage as the #1 animating policy issue for gays and move toward marriage equality, civil unions and tax benefits.
BTW, isn’t BarryO supposed to deliver those federal marriage benefits to gay partners in the first 100 days? I think that what’s Richard Rosendall and the gayLeft screed were promising in exchange for an Obama vote.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 8, 2008 @ 3:38 pm - November 8, 2008
I’m still wondering if blacks, drawn to the polls for BarryO, were the deciding factor in killing gay marriage?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 8, 2008 @ 3:38 pm - November 8, 2008
To someone who lives in another state the provides a decent…if imperfect…set of rights and social-protections for gays and gay couples; it’s unfortunate that the level of concern, outrage and civic-motivation displayed after the Prop-8 vote was missing before it. Where were the marches of outrage DURING the camapign season? How many of those motivated to march on Wdenesday voted on Tuesday? …Or gave time and money before Tuesday?
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — November 8, 2008 @ 5:40 pm - November 8, 2008
I think it is a shame that so many people can be mislead by false accusations run in TV ads. Although, I guess it is no surprise really, as this has been the case for a very long time. Luckily we have proven throughout history that while we may not always do the right thing to begin with, we almost always come to our senses later. I would strongly that this is another one of those cases, and we will be able to give every American the same rights.
Comment by Fred Langemark — November 8, 2008 @ 7:14 pm - November 8, 2008
Excuse me, I seem to have stumbled upon this blog by accident. Can someone point me in the direction of the GayLibertarian blog? I tried the GayLiberal blog and its incestuous self-righteousness had me reaching for the anti-emetics. Now your groveling, we’re-not-worthy arguments have me uping my anti-depressants. I’m hoping the GayLibertarian blog will allow me to get off medications.
But before I leave, I want to throw out a few suggestions.
As long as we, the public, are being allowed to decide who should marry whom, then there are a lot of other potential marriage propositions that need to be voted on. We need to define “traditional marriage” for starters. Is that just between any man and any woman or is it between a man and however many women he wants and can afford to marry? We need to get that on the ballot in Utah and see which side the Mormon Church contributes to. Or is it between a man and whatever women his and her parents decide he should marry? Both of these have a lot more tradition behind them than the current version of “traditional marriage.”
We also need to decide if a marriage is only for the purposes of procreation, as many have argued. In that case, we need a ballot proposition that nullifies any marriage between a man and a woman that doesn’t result in children in a certain amount of time(5-6 years sounds good to me). These can’t be adopted children either since two men or two women can do that. Finally, we need a proposition requiring anyone who thinks it’s a slippery slope from gay marriage to your neighbor marrying his “68 Mustang to get out more often.
p.s. Ignatius, I admire your reasoning but I’m not putting you in charge of the sound bites for my campaign.
Comment by P. Greider — November 8, 2008 @ 8:10 pm - November 8, 2008
Ahh, but there’s the rub. It’s FAR easier to scapegoat.
Comment by American Elephant — November 8, 2008 @ 8:33 pm - November 8, 2008
First, their slogans just didn’t work. “Equality for All†doesn’t resonate with people outside social and political activist circles of the left. A later slogan, “Unfair and Wrong,†did little more than express anger at the initiative.
LOL! No, ROFLMAO! And I’m almost 50… I hate teenage acronyms.
But still, I guess I have to give you credit for trying. And — again — I do seriously love the cop-out that it’s no one’s fault except the ‘No on 8′ crowd than Proposition 8 passed, even as you bend over to defend the Pro-8 crowd in the process. It totally makes me laugh, and we need more laughs these days.
Comment by Famous Author Rob Byrnes — November 8, 2008 @ 10:27 pm - November 8, 2008
#20: I am as opposed to those things as you are, NDT. Any gay marriage movement that wants a chance of being successful must stress those virtues as vigorously as it denounced its opponents.
Comment by Attmay — November 9, 2008 @ 3:06 am - November 9, 2008
Obama was better than McCain on gay issues. But my support for Obama was not based solely on those issues. As to Michigan-Matt’s comment in #21, kindly show me where I ever said anything about the first 100 days. Obama did state his support for federal domestic partner legislation. But he is not a “Magic Negro” and certainly cannot be expected to pull that off (A) without lots of help, and (B) in the first 100 days.
Second, If MM feels entitled to define his own beliefs, he should respect others’ similar right. I have told him many times that I am not a leftist, and my record proves it no matter how many times he writes insultingly and derisively to the contrary. I have spent nearly 30 years criticizing the gay left, including in several articles on FrontPageMag.com for which I have been excoriated by many gay leftists. If I were a leftist I would not have been published by David Horowitz. That, of course, does not mean that I am not wrong for some other reason. Anyway, I am proud of what my country did last week, and I am not going to let people like MM ruin it for me.
Comment by Richard Rosendall — November 10, 2008 @ 12:06 pm - November 10, 2008
“And I am sure that people would favor the addition of a group that strongly supports monogamy, that comes out against promiscuity, and that loudly speaks of the virtues of fidelity, commitment, and values.
Which is everything that the gay community opposes.”
another example of gross characterization coming out of lazy breeders.
since you don’t participate in the gay life of the city, as i do, shut up and pay attention for once: thousands of us sit around here AVOIDING the slutty crowd you see on your tv screens, with the same distaste that you feel. with nowhere to go since you assholes have taken away the possibility for us of finally securing a normal future with one other. and btw those people on tv are your fucking neighbors crashing our city every year. idiots.
Comment by sean — November 12, 2008 @ 4:51 am - November 12, 2008