You might have noticed all the marches around the state and the nation after the passage of Proposition 8.  Join the Impact’s marches certainly made the issue visible. Well, a few organizers have gotten together to try to replicate the success of the Great American Boycotts aka “Day without Immigrants” by organizing “Day without A Gay.”

The worldwide media attention surrounding our massive grassweb efforts for gay rights has been tremendous.  Join the Impact was a HUGE success and will continue to thrive because of our efforts. We’ve reacted to anti-gay ballot initiatives in California, Arizona Florida, and Arkansas with anger, with resolve, and with courage. NOW, it’s time to show America and the world how we love. Gay people and our allies are compassionate, sensitive, caring, mobilized, and programmed for success. A day without gays would be tragic because it would be a day without love.

On December 10, 2008 the gay community will take a historic stance against hatred by donating love to a variety of different causes. On December 10, you are encouraged not to call in sick to work.  You are encouraged to call in “gay”–and donate your time to service! December 10, 2008 is International Human Rights Day. CLICK HERE to join us, and search or add to the list of human rights organizations that need our help RIGHT NOW.

At the same time, pollsters and demographers are predicting that Prop 8 won’t last all that long. In an article in Capitol Weekly, Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign echoes a sentiment felt around the state: We will be ready for another fight in 2010. The Public Policy Institute of California’s demographer Hans Johnson puts its outer limit at 10 years.

“I don’t know if I’d say two years,” Johnson said. “When you look at the age structure, there is no doubt that sometime in the next 10 years, the votes of California will accept, in the majority, gay marriage.”

In the end, the right wing has bought themselves a few years. But what was their real return? It is not like they really could use the boost for McCain’s chances here that came with a Prop 8 turnout. And it’s doubtful they even knew or cared about the other down-ballot races (Bill Hedrick anyone?). No, this wasn’t some sort of strategery, it was bigotry for bigotry’s sake.

So what did they win? They won the right to be the laughingstock of history.  Yes, you too can be a modern day George Wallace. When this book is written, and this chapter of the LGBT civil rights fight comes to a close, the only real losers are those who stood in the way of justice.

(Updated with another, more humorous take on Prop 8 from Funny or Die. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

It’s getting to be that time, time for the wordy memoirs of failure for the No on 8 campaign.  Today we get two different takes on the failures.  First we get Karen Ocamb’s take, largely informed by interviews with key No on 8 consultants and staff:

“You could see in the polling numbers people were starting to doubt the other side’s claim. And then the wedding on the steps happened. And it was like confirmation-it is true. … That, more than anything else, is why we lost women. Was everything perfect [with the campaign]? No. There were lots of little mistakes … But who defines the issues in these campaigns wins. We didn’t quite have enough resources to really define it, so when they hit us on kids … The debate stayed, ‘Was it about schools or not?’ And once the debate stayed there, we were cooked. You can’t win a marriage campaign debating kids in school because people will vote for their kids every time,” says Smith. “Without the wedding on the steps at City Hall, I think we would have won the campaign.”

Smith promises an in-depth analysis of the $70 million initiative battle in 60 days, which will include looking at why there was no statewide field office in voter-rich L.A.

In other words, Smith is saying that they never could have predicted that this was going to be about kids.  Funny thing about that, back in May, I spoke to somebody within the campaign who said that they had terrible focus group numbers on anything related to kids.  But instead of being proactive, the campaign just hoped that the Yes side wouldn’t bring it up.  

That’s what was termed “political malpractice” in the Rolling Stone article:

“This was political malpractice,” says a Democratic consultant who operates at the highest level of California politics. “They fucked this up, and it was painful to watch. They shouldn’t be allowed to pawn this off on the Mormons or anyone else. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and now hundreds of thousands of gay couples are going to pay the price.”

This version is filled with this stuff, much of which regular readers will recognize and understand.  But, I thought this was of particular note:

n one bizarre episode, an outside consultant was forced to “jackhammer” the campaign leadership simply to convince them to make use of a robo-call from Bill Clinton. The campaign also rejected a Spanish-language ad featuring Dolores Huerta, a heroine of the United Farm Workers union.

Missed opportunities were the story of this campaign. Failed outreach in LA, to communities of color, and the complete lack of a union style field program.  Want to see how a real program works, look back at the 2005 special election. The unions knew they were fighting for their political lives, but that never dawned on much of the LGBT community until it was too late. And by the time it came, there was no field program that would allow people to knock on doors and get people to the polls. You know, the things that win elections.

And one final note, this comment was posted by one “katek” on the Rolling Stone site:

When Dickinson called to interview me about the No on Prop 8 campaign it became obvious he wasn’t interested in the facts about the campaign, he wanted only information that supported this hit piece. When he didn’t like my answers, he just asked more leading questions. We lost. Yes, as in any campaign, mistakes were made, but to quote from unnamed sources and anonymous gay leaders running for cover in the wake of this devastating loss while ignoring all facts that don’t support your assasination {sic} attempt against those who worked tirelessly for months is not jouralism {sic}, it’s just trash. Dickinson should ply his “blaming the victim” tactics with the National Enquirer.

Working hard is certainly laudable, but one must note the vacations of campaign leaders with interest. You lost, get used to taking some blame. You just can’t walk away from that and expect to be smelling like roses.

While it is clear that many of the leaders of the traditional LGBT organizations have several strong skills, for example lobbying and legal work, it seems we have yet to really build a strong campaign arm.  I’m optimistic that we can build a formidable structure for 2010.

In the days after Proposition 8’s passage, much was made of a CNN Exit Poll showing 70% of African Americans voted for Prop 8. That poll had a number of problems including a small sample size. But the damage had been done, and it soon became conventional wisdom that black voters made the difference, that Obama brought out a huge wave of black anti-gay voters, etc.

But a further review of the evidence, more accurate exit polling, and academic analysis suggests that the 70% figure is way off, as David Mixner reports:

Dr. Fernando Guerra of Loyola’s Levy Center for the Study of Los Angeles did a far more extensive poll than CNN and found that the 70% figure was way too high. The figure is closer to 57% (still not acceptable) but a long way from the 70%. Other models that I have been running in an attempt to get the facts and not the emotions show the latter a more likely figure.

The other data that appears to be emerging (BUT yet to be totally verified) is that African-Americans who early voted (which was a huge number) voted YES while those on election day voted NO. Remember we did not do extensive campaigning in many of the African-American precincts until the final week or so which was long after tens of thousands had already voted. Our campaign was slow to use Obama’s opposition to Proposition Eight which he gave the day after the initiative qualified five months before the election.

That explanation makes much more sense than anything else I’ve seen. Early voters tend to be older and it would make sense if some of them in the African American community were strongly associated with Yes on 8 churches. Once the No on 8 campaign finally got its act somewhat together and did outreach to African Americans, we saw the rewards on Election Day.

Ultimately this reminds us how cheap, stupid, and misguided the scapegoating of African Americans over Prop 8 has been. Prop 8’s passage revealed that the marriage equality movement has a lot of outreach to do in this state – to older voters, voters living in “red California,” to some Latinos and African Americans but also to numerous white voters (if whites had voted strongly No, this discussion would be moot), to Asian and Pacific Islanders, to some religious groups, including LDS Californians.

When the next campaign happens we will be sure to not make these same mistakes. Outreach is going to happen early and often. Just as Barack Obama took his campaign to red America – organizing in places Democrats never before thought they could win, reaching out to voters Dems often ignored – so too must the Prop 8 campaign adopt an inclusive and assertive organizing strategy, mobilizing our base and doing outreach in every community that did not vote strongly enough for marriage equality.

From today’s Beyond Chron.

I didn’t join the street protests against Proposition 8 right after it passed.  My gut reaction was: “where were all these people when we had the chance to defeat it?”  But “No on 8” ran a terrible campaign that would not have effectively used more volunteers, and it’s possible that many had tried to get involved.  Now the state Supreme Court will decide what to do about Prop 8, and City Attorney Dennis Herrera has put on a strong case to have it overruled.  But that doesn’t mean the Court will do the right thing; even the best legal arguments can lose.  A mass movement of peaceful protest is crucial at building the political momentum to attain marriage equality – which can convince the Court it’s okay to overturn the “will of the voters.”  Social movements rely too much on lawyers and politicians to make progress – without effectively using the masses of people who want to help.  Now people are angry, and this weekend we saw mass protests across the country.  It’s now time for everyday people to get involved.

As Barbara Ehrenreich once argued, Roe v. Wade didn’t just happen because a majority of Supreme Court justices decided women have the right to choose.  It was after a mass movement worked hard for many years to make that politically possible.  While we like to believe the best legal arguments always win in Court, judges are – at the end of the day – politically connected lawyers who wear robes.  As much as Dennis Herrera’s lawsuit is well written and legally sound, it’s still a leap of faith for the state Supreme Court to override a popular majority in the last election.  And citizen action – if done effectively – can go a long way to give them the political courage to do the right thing.

Public outrage at Prop 8’s passage has not just been a few angry protests in the Castro, or righteous indignation at churches.  People who never thought of themselves as “activists” have suddenly been spurred into action – and they’re using the same tools the Obama campaign used to win the presidency.  For example, my friend Trent started a Facebook group called “Californians Ready to Repeal Prop 8.”  He expected a few hundred people to join, but in less than a week the group had over 200,000 members.  Efforts are afoot to collect signatures for a statewide proposition – in 2010, or sooner if we have a special election.

This viral activism is in stark contrast to the “No on 8” campaign – where people relied on political leaders who failed us in waging a statewide effort.  My first involvement with “No on 8” was in July, right after the San Francisco Pride parade.  The campaign had just collected thousands of postcards at Pride, and our task was to call these people and recruit them to volunteer.  But a lot of people come to SF Pride from across the state, and all the volunteer activities were in San Francisco.  It was a lot to ask someone who lives in Monterey or Santa Rosa to come table at a Farmer’s Market in San Francisco for a day.

I asked the campaign why they couldn’t just get people to do “No on 8” activities in their own communities.  They didn’t have to wait until the campaign could afford to open offices in other parts of the state.  Online groups like MoveOn have perfected the model of using the Internet to connect like-minded activists to each other – and get them to meet in “offline” locations to push their political cause.  My suggestion was ignored.  Now we see spontaneous efforts – organized online via social networks, without any “leaders” – to lay the groundwork for a future Proposition campaign to restore marriage equality.

November 15th was a massive “Day of Protest” against Prop 8, and we predictably had a huge rally in San Francisco.  But we also had nearly 2000 people in Sacramento, a whopping 12,000 in Los Angeles, 5000 in San Diego, 2500 in Santa Rosa, and over 1000 in Downtown Ventura.  And it wasn’t just a statewide action – 12,000 took to the streets in Seattle, 5000 in Boston, thousands in Chicago, 1000 in Albuquerque and even a rally in Peoria.  Prop 8 hit a nerve felt past California’s boundaries: during a presidential election that gave millions hope, one of our bluest states voted to take away peoples’ fundamental rights.  People are upset, and want to get involved.

Now Prop 8’s fate is in the hands of our state Supreme Court – who must decide if the greater good (equal protection under law) is worth telling 52% of California voters they can’t eliminate marriage rights.  Peaceful protests can give judge the resolve to do the right thing.  Unlike George W. Bush – who said he didn’t “listen to focus groups” after 2 million people across the world marched against the Iraq War on a single day – I believe that our justices will take these protests seriously.  Which is why they matter so much.