Why Proposition 8 Won In California

The Nation: With Bald Lies And Racial Pandering, An Anti-Gay Marriage Intiative Succeeds

(The Nation)  This column was written by Richard Kim.

---

Amid the honks and cheers of joy in the Castro and West Hollywood, there are quiet signs of anxiety and, as state election results come in, a growing sense of anguish. Something is not right in the Golden State. Even as Californians gave 61 percent of their vote to Barack Obama, a majority of them, 52 percent, voted to discriminate against another kind of minority--gays and lesbians. For a brief window that began in the bridal month of June, California queers had the right to marry, thanks to a state Supreme Court ruling, and some 18,000 same-sex couples said "I do." Proposition 8--a ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman--now says "You can't!"

As I write, the results for the second most expensive campaign in the country after the presidency are not official. According to the No on 8 campaign, as many as 3 million to 4 million absentee and provisional ballots have yet to be counted, and gay activists are rightly refusing to concede until they are. But there is little reason to expect that those votes will tip the scales.

Other numbers paint an even grimmer picture. If exit polls are to be believed, some 70 percent of African-Americans voted Yes on 8, as did 52 percent of Latinos and 49 percent of Asians; each of these demographics went heavily for Obama, blacks by a 94-to-6 margin. Los Angeles County, heavily minority, went 50-50 on Prop 8. These results have shocked gay activists, who knew from earlier polls that black voters favored Prop 8, but they were seeing much smaller margins, closer to 50 percent.

The easy, dangerous explanation for this gap, and one already tossed around by some white gay liberals in the bitter aftermath, is that people of color are not so secretly homophobic. But a more complicated reckoning--one that takes into account both the organizing successes of the Christian right and the failures of the gay movement--will have to take place if activists want a different result next time. First, there's the matter of the Yes on 8 coalition's staggering disinformation campaign. Ad after ad told voters that without Prop 8, their churches would be forced to perform same-sex unions and be stripped of their tax-exempt status; that schools would teach their children to practice homosexuality; and, perhaps most effective, that a smiling Barack Obama had said, "I'm not in favor of gay marriage." This last bit went out in a flier by the Yes on 8 campaign, targeting black households.

Obama indeed does not favor gay marriage, as he said during the primary, but he also came out emphatically against Prop 8, as a late TV ad by the No on 8 campaign emphasized. Mainstream outlets like the Los Angeles Times meticulously countered the other lies as well, but too little, too late. They had taken root in many communities of color, and once lodged, proved difficult to dislodge.

This was always the intent of the Yes on 8 campaign. For years, the California Christian-right apparatus, long hampered by nativism and racism, had been unable to make inroads into the state's brown, yellow and black populations--a demographic gold mine in a state that is more than 50 percent minority and growing. Prop 8 may prove to be their gold rush. From the beginning they bought up ad space in Chinese, black, Spanish and Korean media; they hosted massive rallies for ethnic Christians. The Sunday before election day, I went to Los Angeles City Hall for the most celebratory, most diverse rally I have ever attended; it was organized by Yes on 8 Chinese advocates.

But it's only in an organizing vacuum that bald lies and racial pandering find room to thrive. Gay activists, by most accounts, were simply outmaneuvered. Andrea Shorter, a black lesbian volunteer for the No on 8 campaign, told me that the outreach to the African-American community began in earnest a week ago. "What's happened is that there's been an outcry from communities of color, including African-American communities, who say, 'Include us!' Now there's a GOTV strategy, but for some it seems last minute," she said in an interview before the election. Another No on 8 activist, Karin Wang, told me at the City Hall rally that when Asian Pacific Islander groups went to buy ads in Chinese and Korean newspapers, they were informed that Yes on 8 had been renting space for weeks.

Many gay leaders, especially those less central to the No on 8 efforts, told me that such disorder was endemic to gay efforts. "The campaign doesn't seem to have got its act together until a few weeks ago. It wasn't clicking. It wasn't raising money. It didn't have good ads on the air," says Rafael Mandelman of the San Francisco Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club. He laments, in particular, the absence of gay couples in No on 8 materials, which mainly depicted straight celebrities and elected officials. That's a choice that was strangely mirrored by the Yes on 8 campaign, which put not antigay hate but heterosexual love--its sanctity and the threat to it--at the center of its message. At the City Hall rally on Sunday, the loudest cheers were for a young, straight Chinese couple who had exchanged their vows in front of the crowd. Their marriage, they hoped, would be made "safe" by Prop 8. It certainly was celebrated.

[noloyalisti]

After 30 years of failed GOP policies and the worst of them all, Bushoccio and Darth Cheney, people have had an assault on their rights. People have also gotten greedy and selfish. They don''t realize that Prop 8 is assault on THEIR RIGHTS as well. People better wise up and start fighting the Christian fascists soon.

[4marlene]

The lies were on the NO on 8 side. They lied that this had nothing to do with schools. Then why did the teachers union contribute $100,000 to try to defeat it? Why is the subject taught in Massachusetts schools and a parent arrested for challenging it? Why did teachers already bring the subject into the classrooms in October? Why do 5 and 6 year olds need to know about seques issues at all? This suggests to me that pedophelia is already rampant in education system. Why else so eager to get young minds exposed to it? What next? Lower the age of consent? Legalize NAMBLA activities? I know of children already exposed to same-seques marriage in school, and my youngest son is a victim of it. Yes on 8 did not lie. It is happening, ''like it or not''. I am glad Prop 8 passed because gayy''s couldn''t be discrete and sacred.

[rennin1]

Cal voters approved this ban as a direct result of humans being genetically programmed to transfer their values to their offspring. Because there is no natural way for a homosexual couple to produce kids, they have no kids onto which to transfer their values. Understanding the bias that nature has in favor of heterosexual human relationships leads to an objective definition of what it means to be normal. A person may be considered normal by exhibiting the ability to successfully transfer their values onto their kids. Since homosexual human relationships lack this ability, they are abnormal. The current crop of adults on the planet contains the result of many inter-generational values transfers. Over time various values have competed for dominance and have organized themselves into coherent systems of behavior. The value systems that have won are those that most effectively transfer to the next generation. A successful value system protects you from susceptibility to less viable value systems. We observe this protection in normal adults as they express approval of heterosexual affection and revulsions against homosexual affection. These responses are mechanisms nature has given us so we may remain normal even when a less viable value system attempts to express itself. On Prop 8 voters responded in a way that protects what it means to be normal. That Cal voters did this is predictable, just as it was for the 29 other states for which the question was on the ballot.

[aandw1991]

The proponents of Prop 8 used lies, distortions, and fear to convince people to vote for the measure. Since there seems to be no law against this, and people are too dumb to see past the lies, maybe we should use the same tactics to our advantage next time. How about something like this?: "If Prop 8 passes, they won''t stop there! They will next try to outlaw interracial marriage! Or marriage between people of two different religions! They will try to prevent marriage between men and women who are infertile, or anyone who is incapable of having children! Please! Protect the rights of ALL people to marry! Vote NO on Prop 8!" Lets come up with more ways to distort the truth and play on people''s fears. The other side plays dirty. We are going to have to do the same.

[mccchr1]

Gay marriage has nothing to do with rights. When an interracial man and woman marry, you pronounce them husband and wife at the end of the ceremony, not spouse and spouse. Even African Americans, who know first hand about discrimination, disagreed that gay marriage is a rights issue, and they voted to preserve traditional marriage by an overwhelming majority of over 70%.

[wizardofwaz]

The people have spoken! The homosexuals wanted this! They pushed & pushed and got a vote and the MAJORITY said NO to g@y marriage. But as we are well aware, g@ys will not be satisfied until the have wormed their way into all our lives whether we want them or not! Why must I be FORCED into believing or agreeing with something I believe to be wrong? That''s what this is! We are being forced to agree with something that the MAJORITY said they don''t want!!! Don''t know how else to say it! WE SAID NO TO G@Y MARRIAGE!!! The people have spoke! I don''t want my children to be forced into accepting g@ys!!! You lost! We won! Live with it!!!! Isn''t that one of you Cuzzin Its sayings? Your g@y live with it? Hurts when it''s turned around on you doesn''t it???

[jolsonbear]

If you want to protect marriage, then ban divorce and/or have the groom kastratted.

[4marlene]

Prop 8 passed due to stupid actions by teachers in Calfornia. As soon as gay marriage was allowed, thanks to 4 San Francisco judges, gay marriage was brought to elementary school children. First a field trip to a lesbian wedding, then there was Oct 23 "coming out day" with gaye-lesbiane alliance pledge card signings in 1st grade. A book called King and King has been published and shown in elementary schools in Massachusetts and parents aren''t allowed to opt their children out. Parents do not want same-seques marriage forced down the throats of their children! A few choice words from Gavin Newsom ''like it or not...'' and the campaign had teeth in it from the get go. The only way same-seques marriage can survive is to ban the subject of marriage from all school curriculum. Parents should have exclusive rights to teach their own children about the religious rite of marriage. Prayer had been banned, now time to ban the subject of marriage and keep church and state separate.
*some words deliberately misspelled to pass censure

[noloyalisti]

Yes, the Christian fascists who pretend to love, actually hate as we see by their support of the war-mongering GOP and the fiasco that is the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

These are the same right wing morons who don''t want government to interfere with their wacko religious beliefs but want the government to pass a law that tells others what to do.

I say we start a proposition to take away their right to practice religion. They might actually support that they are so dumb.

[yerhumps]

Proposition 8 was the work of cruel religious fanatics, and passed by a cowardly, ignorant citizenry. It will not stand. Gay marriage is here to stay. In ten years or less, it will be legal in every state, once Obama levels the Supreme Court playing field with center-left appointments. It is, after all, supremely unconstitutional and un-American. Our best instincts, to grant and expand rights to our citizens, has been viciously betrayed by this piece of religious mischief.

[yongamerica]

The work around here is the term marriage. Marriage is a religious union taxed by the marriage license. The name should be change to union license, and same *** unions should hold up in any court.

[germanmom]

I agree with denise_1900. My son-in-law is black and takes offense that some would compare racial issues with the sexual practices of a group of people.

[germanmom]

Maybe the points on the Yes on 8 flyers should have been prefaced with, "In our opinion"... or "Our concerns are"....
But in our sound-bite world political flyers don''t allow for that. It doesn''t matter anyway, it''s a given that these points are the OPINION of the sponsors of the flyer. That said, the concerns the Yes on 8 people have are very real and valid. These things would have a good chance of happening.

[amrt5016]

It''s a setback for g@y rights and I''m disappointed. But looking to the future, there''s much to be hopeful for. The white vote went the other way on this issue and I think that''s a first in a long time. So regardless, I think that the cultural climate is continuing to change in a favorable direction.

But the greatest reason to think it''s only a matter of time before g@ay rights are recognized in America is because the argument against them is the same one against abortion, physician-assisted suicide and stem cell research. It''s rooted in the darkness and irrationality of religious beliefs. It''s an argument that''s been losing ground as the information age knits us all together into a brighter and smaller world.

[sincity_q]

As wildly unlikely as it may seem, it IS possible that, as a nation, we still do not feel bound to agree with, or accept as legitimate, the gay lifestyle in the mainstream.

And, as rediculous as it may sound to some, the people have now spoken so all the rioting and raging really does nothing more than rip away the facade of a gay community that is anywhere near ready to join that same mainstream.

Finally, as much as these truths may run counter to the current slant of political correctness, the outcome of the vote is not in question.

It''s time to move on.

[hypnotoad72]

I just have one question. What form of execution do you propose and where will you carry it out. Will it be made public and televised so all can see those horrible humans put to the death they surely deserve? And you call yourselves "Christians."

Posted by Element51 at 09:39 PM : Nov 07, 2008
---


How about AIDS?

There was one particularly vile site (www.m**hunt.***) and you can figure it out, the URL isn''t obscene despite its content; I had put up an ad saying I wanted to get HIV. A couple people said I was sick, but there were plenty who were happy to infect me. You know, THAT''S SICKER. By far.

Of course, to televise that form of death would require too much commercial time...

Sorry to be apathetic. I''m sure I''ll get flak, but that''s to be expected and I doubt many would be able to see the irony anyway.

[hypnotoad72]

Posted by Prelgovisk at 05:58 AM : Nov 08, 2008
---

I''m bisexual and would have voted ''yes''; for most of the reasons why the other ''yes''-voters would.

I acknowledge my attractions, but it doesn''t mean I have to indulge all of them and being bi doesn''t make me oblivious to others'' viewpoints. There is a "greater good".

It''s not okay to be gay when so few genuinely want to be ''partnered'', much less relationships -- as some statistics have shown, only 5% do. And as GLBT people are, what, 5% of the population, to change the world to suit their desires is wrong on all sorts of levels.

People tolerate out of general civil niceties. If the issue gets forced, and it''s always during election year or some tv/film industry self-gratification broadcast, people often get turned off by default. In a free society, nobody wants to be forced.

And there''s plenty of other things in life than staining some bed sheets, for I have learned gay men do not want relationships but "wham bam, thank you mister and be sure to get tested in 3 months!" instead. That is reality.

[prelgovisk]

Opposition to homosexuality is not the result of a campaign. Most people are against homosexuality on many levels.

The homosexual agenda though does have a campaign and uses propoganda. The word "homophobic" is a propganda word. The same people who say, "You don''t know how I feel" use the word about others. If Homosexuals can read the minds and motives of others, why is there so much confusion and surprise over the election?

The truth is, they can''t do it. They missread the motives of the voters because they projected their own propaganda and then started to believe in it.

[attalus-2009]

Sheeple? You can''t stand the fact that most Americans agree that changing marriage for a lousy 3% of the queer population is not a good thing.

[denise_1900]

This is not a racial issue or a bigotry issue, this issue is about trying to redefine marriage to which the majority of Californian''s voted no, TWICE.

California is comprised of white people as well as a variety of ethnic groups - all of these people voted for and against Re-defining marriage.

It is silly to try and blame one group of people more and one group of people less. Collectively, Californian''s said NO to redefining marriage.

People try and make this issue equal to the plight of blacks in America. There is no comparison.