Like many other Californians, I woke up this morning with bittersweet emotions.  Yesterday, we as a state, and a country, elected our country’s first African-American President.  Yet, at the same time, California wrote discrimination into its state Constitution.  

Discrimination in our Constitutions isn’t exactly something new.  Our much-praised US Constitution had recognition and toleration of Slavery written into its pages. It recognized slaves as only part of a person for the purpose of the census.  It took over a century, and a bloody Civil War to take that discrimination out of the Constitution.  

Until the data is finalized for this election it is pointless to try and figure out exactly how we lost the battle against Proposition 8.  I strongly suspect we will see certain communities in California voting against it in very high numbers (latino & African-American come immediately to mind, but we will see when the data is fully available).  We will also see the Central Valley and the Inland Empire voting against in large numbers, as well as San Diego and Imperial Counties.  

Expect to see me looking at that data when it is available, but for now, I offer these words below the fold.

Eight years ago our fellow Californians voted by around two-thirds to prevent us from marrying one another.  Yesterday, only little more than half voted for the same thing.  In eight years, we have made great strides towards equality.  

The fight is not over.  We have suffered a significant defeat, but we are by no means out of the fight.  If in eight years we have made such progress, there are many years, and many elections ahead for us to go the final distance and restore what has been taken away from us today.  

It took our African-American friends nearly two centuries to overcome the discrimination that was written into the United States Constitution.  Today we see the victory in that struggle with Barack Obama being elected to the office of President.  He did it with more than just the support of African-Americans, but with the support of Americans from all walks of life, and that is where we should place our hopes for the future.  

The fight to end discrimination is a fight that continues on over the years.  We will not give up, and eventually we will win.  The fight won’t be easy, but it will be victorious in the end.  

As this vote shows, we have lots of work ahead of us to win the hearts of our fellow citizens.  Yet, it is in the public arena that we will achieve final victory, not in the courts.  Let us spend the next few months, and years, preparing our arguments, reaching out to the Californians that voted against us, and let us prove to them why they should vote for our cause next time.  

It might be two years, or four years before we are ready to take the battle back to the public vote, but that is where we will need to win this fight once and for all.  As we saw last night with the victory of Barack Obama, it can be done.  Now it is up to us to make change happen here in California.  

“Blacks turning out in droves to support Obama also threw their support strongly behind Proposition 8, which would overturn the state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage. Opposition to the ban held a slight edge among whites, while Lations and Asians were split.”

-via AP.

Sacha Baron Cohen has serious guts:

Disguised in a blond wig and in character as Bruno, a gay Austrian fashion reporter who’s the star of another mockumentary, The Bruno Movie Sasha Baron Cohen marched with haters demonstrators who support Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage at a rally across from Los Angeles’ City Hall.

Cohen who starred Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, enturbulated the Yes on 8 crowd with Bruno’s gayness until reporters and camera crews spotted him. Members of his film crew tried to shield him and “Bruno” was eventually whisked away in a van before he had to encounter real media.

Perez Hilton has some video at his site, but there’s not much to it.

Seriously, Sacha, be careful.  The potential for violence is not only great, but it’s been realized to varying degrees.

The other day I wondered if the No on 8 side was being too cautious in their advertising, instead of putting an actual face on the discrimination and harm that would be suffered if marriage rights were eliminated for a particular class of people.  Well, this video isn’t exactly that, but it certainly makes the point about discrimination.  Via Amanda at Pandagon, this is my favorite video of the cycle.  A group redubbed the voices on a video of young people ranting about all the supposed consequences about gay marriage, and changed it so they say “interracial marriage.”  It’s kind of perfect:

See, this comes down to discrimination, pure and simple.  The other side wants to talk about ancillary outcomes, but really they want to hurt LGBT people.  I mean, we have to be willing to say that.  The other side has no problem outlining what they consider to be the stakes, as crazy as they think they are:

“This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon,” said Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and an eminent evangelical voice, speaking to pastors in a video promoting Proposition 8. “We lose this, we are going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobby based in Washington, said in an interview, “It’s more important than the presidential election.”

“We’ve picked bad presidents before, and we’ve survived as a nation,” said Mr. Perkins, who has made two trips to California in the last six weeks. “But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage.”

I’m glad that No on 8 is raising a lot of money, and that high-profile Californians like Maria Shriver are on board.  But at some point in this final week, someone has to break this down.  This is about harming same-sex couples.

If you tool around the Internets as much as I do, you may have noticed this.  The No on 8 campaign has been using Barack Obama’s logo and image in Web ads that say “Obama Calls Prop. 8 Divisive And Discriminatory”.  Clicking on the ad will take you to this page, at the No On Prop. 8 site, with a couple quotes from Sen. Obama about the measure.

The Obama campaign would not let this happen on its own.  God for them for allowing the No on 8 campaign to associate with his remarks.  Obama has shown a willingness to lend himself to the efforts of downticket races – he’s cut an ad for Oregon US Senate candidate Jeff Merkley – though I doubt we’ll see much more than this Web advertising from him on Prop. 8.

Here are a couple other things I think need to happen to help the Prop. 8 cause.  First, Google needs to stop running ads that violate their own policies.  Google has a very specific standard for those groups that use their architecture to advertise, which includes banning ads that advocate against a “protected class” like the LGBT community.  Yet they allow Yes on 8 to use Google ads.  I know Google as a company is on the right side of this debate, but they can either stand behind their stated policy or not.

The other thing that the no side might want to consider is putting an actual face on who would be discriminated against with this measure.  I know this has been a source of controversy that’s simmered under the surface, but today Jonathan Rauch brings it up in the LA Times.

The need to walk that tightrope helps explain why the actual subjects of next month’s initiative, gay couples, were “inned” by the “No on 8” campaign’s ads. (Full disclosure: I am a “No on 8” donor.) One ad, for example, features a gray-haired straight couple. “Our gay daughter and thousands of our fellow Californians will lose the right to marry,” says mother Julia Thoron.

A subsequent ad, all text with voice-over narration, mentions marriage only once (“Regardless of how you feel about marriage, it’s wrong to treat people differently under the law”) and never uses the phrase “gay marriage” or even the word “gay.” Just as oblique was a spot, released Wednesday, in which state Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell reassures viewers that “Prop. 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren’t required to teach anything about marriage.” A casual viewer could have come away from these ads puzzled as to exactly what right thousands of Californians might be about to lose.

Asked about the absence of gay couples, a senior “No on 8” official told KPIX-TV in San Francisco that “from all the knowledge that we have and research that we have, [those] are not the best images to move people.” Children, also, were missing; showing kids with same-sex parents could too easily backfire […]

Whatever the tactical considerations, the absence of gay couples and gay marriages from California’s gay-marriage debate makes for an oddly hollow discussion. It leaves voters of good conscience to conjure in their own minds the ads that are not being aired: Ads that show how gay marriage directly affects the couples and communities that need it most.

You can show me all the data you want; “hollow” is the best word for what’s happening.  Neither side is talking about the actual proposition in their messaging.  I expect that from the Yes side, to hide their serial homophobia and focus on made-up protections of imagined rights that would be encroached upon.  But when a self-described squish like Kevin Drum terms No on 8’s ads “bland and generic,” something is wrong.  Without a clear indication, as done in the Ellen DeGeneres PSA, of who would be harmed by this measure and why, there’s this subconscious message of shame about the rights that this campaign is trying to defend.

On a completely unrelated note, this is a great post from a minister discussing what the Bible actually says about marriage.

So the latest poll on Prop. 8 has come out from the PPIC, showing the No side still ahead, albeit with a narrower lead than the last time PPIC was in the field.

A majority of Californians still oppose a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, but the margin is narrowing so notably that the fate of Proposition 8 may hinge on the turnout for the presidential race.

A new poll released late Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California shows Prop. 8 losing 52 to 44 percent among likely voters. That eight-point margin has narrowed from the 14-point spread that PPIC polls found in August and September. Just 4 percent of likely voters remain undecided.

“The vote on Proposition 8 could get closer between now and the election, because we know that Californians are evenly divided in general on whether they favor or oppose gay marriage,” said Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of the PPIC.

There should be a Field Poll on this next week.  But I think it’ll confirm what we see here – a close race that either side can take.  The polling guru Nate Silver of 538 waded into this today.

Both the PPIC and SurveyUSA polls have Barack Obama leading by large (20+ point) margins, so I’m not sure that opponents of the measure can count on some sort of turnout surge above and beyond what is already reflected in the polls. There are evidently fair numbers of Obama/’Yes on 8′ tickets, especially among the state’s black and Latino populations.

On the one hand, there have been suggestions that there is something of ‘Bradley Effect’ on polling on gay marriage bans, and that such measures tend to overperform their polls, although a more recent analysis refutes this suggestion.

On the other hand, because ballot measures are confusing, it is usually better to be on the ‘No’ side of them … people tend to vote ‘no’ on things that they don’t understand. In this case, that gives an advantage to the marriage equality folks. (It may even be the case that some voters vote ‘no’, thinking that they’re voting no to gay marriage, when in fact the wording of the resolution is such that a ‘no’ vote protects gay marriage).

I’d peg the ‘no’ side as about a 55/45 favorite, but not more than that.

Sounds pretty accurate to me.  So what can turn the tide in this race at this late date?  Well, there are the human interest stories like this ex-mayor of Folsom coming out and opposing Prop. 8 in an emotional display.  I think putting a face on whose rights would be eliminated can be powerful.  There is also value in putting a spotlight on the extremism and basic indecency coming from the Yes side.

Standing there as the “Yes on 8” rally outside Oakland’s Foothill Missionary Baptist Church began to wind down today, I noticed a gentleman in the crowd approach an elderly woman who was holding a “Gay marriage = legal perversion” sign. I eavesdropped – hey, that’s my job – as he told her he agreed with her sign completely, but he urged her to ditch it and just use a “Yes on 8” sign instead because her homemade sign’s sentiment might turn off some voters.

They’re trying to hide their wingnuts, but they’re pretty ubiquitous.  And this story seems to me to be a good one to push, considering that one of the key arguments of the Yes side concerns classroom indoctrination.

A Salinas High School teacher who distributed “Yes on Proposition 8” literature to her students last week has been asked to refrain from doing so by administrators […]

The literature that was passed out to students says it is important to protect marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.

The one-page statement also says it is critical to vote yes on Proposition 8, saying its failure would eventually force the state to approve “polygamy, polymory, incest, group and other ‘creative’ arrangements for marriage.”

Think of the children!

But a more controversial idea, expressed by Andrew Sullivan, is that Barack Obama should get involved in this race.  Obama has already expressed his opposition to Prop. 8, but Sullivan argues that he should do more.

As expected, one reason Proposition 8, stripping gay couples of marriage equality, is still viable in California is because of strong African-American support. Black Californians back the anti-gay measure by a margin of 20 points, 58 – 38, in the SUSA poll. No other ethnic group comes close to the level of opposition and black turnout is likely to be very high next month.

All this makes it vital, in my opinion, that Barack Obama strongly and unequivocally oppose Proposition 8 in California, rather than keeping mainly quiet as he has done so far. We need him to make an ad opposing it.  This is a core test of whether gay Americans should back Obama as enthusiastically as they have in the last month. If he does not stand up for gay couples now, why should we believe he will when he is in office? And if black Americans are the critical bloc that helps kill civil rights for gays, that will not help deepen Obama’s governing coalition. It could tear it apart.

I think Sen. Obama is focused on winning a different election right now.  Still, even a small measure, like sending out a fundraising appeal to his California list, could speak volumes.  And as he’s already on the record, it’s not like the McCain campaign couldn’t already point to the issue if they so chose.

What do you think?

It seems like every day, there’s a list of new opponents to Prop. 8, which would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.  One day it’s Google.  The next day it’s Steven Spielberg.  Then Mary Cheney.  And The New York Times editorial board.  And Levi-Strauss.  And Brad Pitt.  And Republicans Against 8, who managed to come up with the most singularly odd revisionist ad announcing their opposition (“Democrats are the only hope for freedom!”).  And, appropriate to mention on Rosh Hashanah morning, the Board of Rabbis of Southern California.

The board – a collection of leaders from the Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movements – this week declared its opposition to the measure, which would amend the California Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Leaders of the board said they wanted protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.

“For many rabbis, it speaks on a personal level in terms of people they deal with whose lives have been impacted over the issue,” said Rabbi Stewart Vogel of Temple Aliyah in Woodland Hills and the board’s president.

The board has more than 290 members. Roughly 120 took part in Wednesday’s vote, the largest number of rabbis to weigh in on such an issue in recent memory. Vogel said Friday that 93% of those who cast votes supported the resolution.

Good Yom Tov!

Calitics is a part of this coalition through our Counter-Fast For Equality.  We’re giving thousands of supporters the opportunity to sign on to stop the elimination of marriage equality, and donate through the Fast4Equality ActBlue page.  We also have a Twitter feed set up.  If you send a tweet with the #fast4equality hashtag, it’ll appear on our site.  So sign up today!

Last week I wrote about the religious right’s takeover of the Yes on 8 campaign, and their efforts to rile up their base to eliminate marriage for same-sex couples.  In particular, I highlighted this statement:

Hundreds of pastors have called on their congregations to fast and pray for passage of a ballot measure in November that would put an end to gay marriage in California.

The collective act of piety, starting Wednesday and culminating three days before the election in a revival for as many as 100,000 people at the San Diego Chargers’ stadium, comes as church leaders across California put people, money and powerful words behind Proposition 8 […]

the gathering, called the call, will conclude a 40-day fasting period for california that begins sept. 24. christians are being asked to fast in some way, either the entire 40 days or perhaps by using team relays to cover the entire 40 days.

This “fast relay” thing just sounded more like eliminating between-meal snacking.  And just the notion of fasting to pass a ballot initiative is kee-razy to the extreme.  Well, if they can do it, so can we.

Calitics has decided to set up a Counter-Fast For Equality.  Participants can fast for 1 minute, 10 minutes, half an hour, whatever you can spare.  At the Counter-Fast For Equality website, you can sign up for the amount of time you’ll be fasting (hey Jews, don’t pick Yom Kippur, you’re fasting anyway!).  And much like a charity race, you can get sponsored for your time and trouble for fasting at the rate of a dollar a minute.  At the Fast4Equality ActBlue page, you can donate as little as $1 (or one minute’s worth of fasting) to the No on 8 campaign.

Just to get you in the swing of things, we put together this video detailing the ins and outs of a short-term fast.  Actually, our volunteer faster had a little trouble with it:

So get to it, America!  Join us at The Counter-Fast For Equality and sign up today!