The Prop8 report: how we lost the election (video)

Regardless of the decision in federal court, our movement continues to suffer at the ballot box. At some level, until we achieve the voters' support, the criticism of "activist judges" and "ignoring the will of the people" will be used against us.

Right now, support for marriage equality in California is around 51%. That sounds terrific, until you remember that it was also at 51% six months before Prop8 passed. So we are back where we started.

So how did we lose the election? A new report examines what happened to shift our narrow victory to a sound defeat. Dave Fleischer, the author has an oped in the LA Times summarizing his findings.
The executive summary has the précis.

Notably, we were outplayed by the bad guys. As we all know by now, we didn't lose the African-American religious community--we never had them to lose. We lost the white soccer Moms who were terrorized by propaganda that their kindergarteners were going to be taught how to have gay sex if Adam wed Steve. Those were the biggest reasons for the loss, along with mis-management by the No-on-8 people, and a terror of mentioning the word "gay".

THe Advocate details what this means:

[P]arents with children under 18 living at home played a potentially decisive role in the passage of Prop. 8, constituting more than three quarters of nearly 700,000 voters, most of them white Democrats, who switched sides in the most heated days of the campaign and voted to oppose same-sex marriage. Given that Prop. 8 passed by 52% to 48%, or a margin of nearly 600,000 votes, parents and like-minded voters could have swung the contest at the last minute, the report suggests.

The report doesn't pull any punches in pointing out that we were (in Prop8) and continue to be (e.g., in Maine's Question 1) outplayed by totally predictable campaign strategies of the opposition. I think many of us found the Maine campaign depressing, because the anti-equality side ran exactly the same ads as they ran in California (literally the same, in many cases ) and STILL our side hadn't figured out how to respond.

Unless and until we can spike the guns of this argument, and respond forcefully (or better, pre-empt it) we will continue to lose people in the middle who SHOULD be our supporters. And that 51% "support" will continue to be too soft to count on.

Going to the polls: $40million wasted?

You may remember that in the run up to PropH8, our side got a little complacent. Polls suggested that we were in the lead. In Maine, too, it looked as though we could win. Sadly, we know in both those places that we lost equality.

So what happened?

A new study suggests that polls routinely understate the opposition to marriage equality. They are pretty accurate on the support, but the opposition is more than recorded. Moreover, the opinions are pretty firm, and do not change appreciably during the campaign.

NYU political scientist Patrick Egan studied 167 polls in 33 states with marriage bans over a 10 year period, and compared it to the election results. (PDF here)

• Those favoring and opposing the ballot measures have largely fought to a draw, in that the share of the public saying they intend to vote for or against these measures typically changes very little over the course of these campaigns. Neither side has been more successful than the other on average at changing voter sentiment between the beginning and the end of a campaign.


• Nevertheless, survey data consistently underestimate voter opposition to legal recognition of samesex couples. The share of voters in pre‐election surveys saying they will vote to ban same‐sex marriage is typically seven percentage points lower than the actual vote on election day. By contrast, survey estimates of the proportion of voters intending to vote against same‐sex marriage bans tend to be relatively accurate predictors of the ultimate share of “no” votes.


• Voter surveys do not become appreciably more accurate as election day approaches, meaning that even those polls conducted in a campaign’s final weeks understate the true share of the vote against legal recognition of same‐sex couples. Support for a ban on samesex marriage projected from final polling typically falls three percentage points short of actual results.


• No support is found for two reasons—social desirability bias and voter confusion– typically offered to explain the gap between surveys and election results. There is no immediate evidence indicating that the discrepancies are caused either by poll respondents’ reluctance to express anti‐gay sentiment to survey researchers or respondents’ confusion about the meaning of a “yes” and “no” vote.

But what this means is that the election is basically won or lost before we start. We have to change hearts and minds BEFORE we start the campaign. And that means delaying the campaign until we have done the groundwork, to lay in that solid level of support. And the only way to tell that is, well, polling.

Moving the Middle on Marriage

The group Third Way has done a study looking at the response of the "middle" to the issue of marriage equality. Their study is now released. They define the "middle" as people who don't support marriage per se, but do support some recognition of GLBT couples.

Our biggest insight is that the “equality” argument is not connecting with the middle on marriage. Instead, we must show the middle that gay and lesbian couples are seeking to join in the true spirit of how the middle sees marriage. The middle thinks of marriage as an ideal as opposed to a legal construct, and they are not yet persuaded that gay couples fit into this ideal. For the middle, the ideal of marriage is about lifetime commitment, sacrifice, responsibility, and obligation—not rights and benefits. To reach the middle, we need to show respect for the tradition of marriage and demonstrate that gay couples want to undertake the responsibilities that come with it, including making a lifetime commitment to another person.

That's huge, don't you think? (my emphasis) They don't buy the "separate is not equal" argument. They don't buy cold, clinical arguments (like those that the no-on-8 campaign used in its infamously gay-free ads in California).

The report says,

They are not yet convinced that gay couples see marriage the way they do: as a weighty responsibility of making a lifetime commitment to another person.

(And I'll tell you, people lauding "open relationships" as some sort of future-of-marriage aren't helping!)

Drilling down deeper, they identify two areas of concern.

The Middle’s First Concern: Redefinition of Marriage...
When asked whether gay and lesbian couples were trying to join or change the institution of marriage, 55% of the middle said change, and only 34% said join. ....They said allowing gay couples to marry would undermine the sanctity of marriage before God (34%), change the way children perceive marriage (20%), and “cheapen” traditional marriage (13%)

I think this is why it is really important for churches to be part of the equality movement so that the religious commitment can be seen. And despite the Prop8 proponents attempts to paint marriage as procreative in purpose, we know it's not. And how does my marriage have any effect on anyone else's? In fact many people who know us have said that our marriage is one of the strongest they know.

The Middle’s Second Concern: What Marriage means for Kids... When we asked them about some of these broader concerns, 40% of the middle thought kids would be more likely to experiment with homosexuality if marriage was upheld, and 58% said they were concerned about that issue. And, as noted above, many of the people who worried that allowing gay couples to marry would change that institution said it would do so by changing the way children perceive marriage

What I found interesting in this part of the report is that they express much less concern about our kids--in fact, they seem to agree that our kids are helped by marriage--and much more concern about their own. I still don't understand how anyone can think that simply by us marrying each other, their kids somehow become more at risk. It's not as though we are suddenly going to swoop down on the community or the schools. We're already there.

The report goes on to suggest three strategies for our side.

1. Show that gay couples will honor and respect the tradition of marriage..... We can do that by talking about the value of marriage as the middle sees it, articulating how important the institution of marriage is to society, and focusing on the sacrifices and responsibilities it entails, instead of the rights and benefits.

I think this is true, and I've really started to try to do that.

2. Demonstrate that gay couples see marriage as a lifetime commitment...... We can capture the true spirit of marriage by highlighting gay couples who are talking about why they want to get married, demonstrating that they take the institution very seriously, and showing that they want to make the major life decision to honor and cherish it.

That means lifelong commitment, monogamy, fidelity, and a certain conservatism about family and sex. It's why I'm SO PISSED at self-satisfied swingers trying to justify "open relationships". It may be a relationship but it's NOT a marriage.

3. Encourage gay people and allies to talk to others about why they support marriage....talking to a gay person helps to convince the middle that gay couples want to get married for the same reasons straight couples do—and that those couples will do their best to honor the lifetime commitment, sacrifices, and responsibilities that marriage entails.

This is SO IMPORTANT. It's why we have been very committed to using the term "wife" for each other, and coming out again and again. It's hard work, frankly, to always be coming out to strangers but as my wife says, we have to be the witnesses for what we are trying to achieve.

Marriage is a huge huge thing. It's not a casual jump over a broom. It's not a form notarized at Kinko's. It's monstrous and immense and incredibly important. We don't want to redefine it. We only want to participate in it, and by our participation, strengthen the fabric of our common society with our commitment to each other.

That's what we have to get across.

Go read the full report at the Third Way website--it's excellent!

Next proposition: ban atheist marriage!

From the Pew Foundation, in a study on race, we find this morsel:

The survey finds that most Americans also are ready to accept intermarriage in their family if the new spouse is Hispanic or Asian. But there is one new spouse that most Americans would have trouble accepting into their families: someone who does not believe in God. Seven-in-ten people who are affiliated with a religion say they either would not accept such as marriage (27%) or be bothered before coming to accept it (42%).

To do the math for you, that means only 31% of Americans of faith are fine with having an atheist in the family. Compare this to the inter-racial issue, where 64% or whites are okay with a family member marrying a black, and 80% of blacks have no problem with a family member marrying a white. From a previous Pew study, 35% of Americans support same sex marriage (this drops to 21% for regular church goers, and rises to 67% for people without religious affiliation). I've graphed these numbers for you below.

So does this mean that we can expect a new proposition, banning marriage to atheists? Come on, isn't that the logical next step?

David Mixner speaks out again

From David Mixner:

Call this campaign against us what it is - Gay Apartheid.

Refuse to allow any of our fellow Americans, President Obama or our allies to view this as a political issue who time hasn't quite come. America is in the process of creating a system of Gay Apartheid. We will not quietly sit and accept it. All over the place, this nation is creating one set of laws for LGBT Americans and another set for all other Americans. That is the classic definition of Apartheid. Either our political allies are for Gay Apartheid or against it. If they are against it, they must fight with us and no longer duck like President Obama did in Maine and Washington. There is no half way in fighting Apartheid.

Today many will claim that we must surrender the word marriage or accept some sort of separate but equal arrangement. It didn't work in the African-American struggle for freedom and it doesn't work for us. We want full equality with the same rights, benefits and privileges as all other Americans now. We say to those friends, allies and even in our own community who want to accept that second class citizenship, "Oh No You Don't!" We will accept no compromises, time-lines, incremental approaches with our freedom. Don't counsel patience as if this is a new issue. We have been fighting these ballot box bigots for over three decades. Enough.

Third, it is clear that the political establishment in Washington doesn't understand that we no longer willing to wait until it meets their timetable or political needs.

President Obama standing on the sidelines in Maine and Washington was appalling. The failure of our national organizations and leaders to demand his involvement was equally appalling. .... If you want our support, you have to earn it. We are way beyond where we will accept a little bit in 2009, some in 2010 and maybe more in the second term. Does anyone think after yesterday election results and the upcoming 2010 election, Obama has the ability to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and "DOMA" next year? Does anyone really believe we haven't already missed a historic opportunity in the first 10 months of this year? Only a courageous fighting President and Congress can now help turn us this around and that we have not seen so far. Enough.

Aftermath

NO ONE should put the rights of a minority to the ballot. They will always lose. NO CIVIL RIGHTS BATTLES ARE WON AT THE BALLOT BOX. It's outrageous that we have to beg our fellow citizens for citizenship. And they aren't going to give it to us now, any more than the majority would have voted to end slavery, to give women the vote, to give African-Americans full civil rights, or to allow mixed race marriage.

We did not vote on any of those issues. Why is MY citizenship up to the ballot? Why are gay people uniquely required to be approved by a majority vote?

Not all traditions are worth keeping.

Dear Maine, 2

Dear Maine,
You can't say I didn't warn you, back in May, what to expect if you put the rights of your GLBT citizens to the popular vote.

The lies, the ignorance, and the divisiveness happened just as I predicted. The haters told vicious lies, and they won.

I know just how your GLBT citizens, their friends, and their families feel this morning. Because we still feel that way.

And as I told you before, you have deeply injured your community. People don't just "get over" being told they are second class, that their families are not worth protecting and that their love is meaningless. People don't just move on from the insults and the bile. Now, every interaction is tinged with doubt: did this person vote against me? Does this person hate me?

Workplaces will be on edge. Civic interactions will suffer. Churches will be split. There will be deep, deep hurt.

Maine, you have torn the heart out of many people. And that damage will linger for a long, long time.

I'm so sorry you did this. But you can't say you didn't see it coming.

Sadly,
California.

From Wockner: "Gay marriage was a winner in the cities of Portland (73%), South Portland (64%) and Bangor (54%), and in places such as Kennebunkport (61%) and Bar Harbor (73%). It lost in the cities of Lewiston (40%) and Augusta (47%)."

Maine needs our help

In less than 80 days, Maine's version of Prop8 (called Prop1) will be on the ballot.

Frank Schubert, who ran the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, is leading the attack on our northeastern brothers and sisters.

They have raised more money than the good guys.

Time to support Equality Maine, folks! Let's prove we can WIN.

And Mainers: VOTE NO ON 1!

Dear Maine

Dear Maine,
I hear that you have joined the ranks of the enlightened in the Northeast, and got yourselves a great new gay marriage law, passed by the legislature! I'm sure you are especially proud of your governor John Baldacci, who said,

“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions. I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”

“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”

“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State. It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government."

Way to go, Maine!

Unfortunately, I hear that your law allows those opposed to collect signatures to put a referendum on the ballot in an attempt to overturn this. Oh, be very careful, Maine.

Because you will be assaulted in parking lots and shopping malls, as professional signature collectors harass you. At churches, signature-getters will chase congregants across the parking lot insisting they sign, even if they don't want to. They may tell you that you are signing something completely different, or that you are signing to SUPPORT gay marriage.

And if the referendum gets on the ballot, it's just beginning. Because out-of-state money, and out-of-state Hate, will pour into your state.

You will get angry advertisements that are full of lies and more lies, and if those don't work, there will be threats and vandalism.

And, Maine? Regardless of the outcome of the election, there will be anger and deep bitterness and injury that will not heal easily. And your civic, civil discourse will be deeply damaged for a long time to come. People will stop speaking to each other. Work relationships will degrade. Neighbors will shun one another. Long after the election, people will flip each other off on the freeway and wariness and anger will simmer for a long time.

Think hard, Maine. The legistlature did their job. So did the governor. Be proud, and decline to sign.

Love, California

(Keep track at Equality Maine.)