(I added the report FOX 11 (LA) ran on the event to Unite the Fight’s crossposted piece. Note: I work for the Courage Campaign; “Unite the Fight” does not. – promoted by Robert in Monterey)

Of the countless meetings I’ve attended after the election, focusing either on the postmortem of the No on 8 Campaign (including Saturday’s Equality Summit), brainstorming strategy, figuring out how to build coalitions, planning events and actions, and trying to determine next steps for the movement, I have not been to one meeting that was as effective, inclusive, practical and educational as the Courage Campaign’s Camp Courage.

Held in West Hollywood and knowing that it was going to last from 8:30am-5:30pm, I thought spending my whole Sunday at the event made the whole thing seem daunting. And I was skeptical. After feeling let down after so many attempts to do what the Courage Campaign was attempting, I was prepared to get bored, lose interest in the speakers and eventually tune out altogether. But amazingly, they held my attention the whole time, and I learned a lot. Borrowing the mantra, “Respect – Empower – Include” from the Obama campaign, Camp Courage succeeded in doing just that.

(Due to my having to write the Equality Summit report, I missed the kick off reception the night before, where many told me Cleve Jones gave a riveting speech. Unfortunately, I can’t report the details, but if any of you were able to make it, please write me and tell me about it, and I’ll post it. Also, I hear there is video of this – please let me know when it is up!)

Camp Courage kicked off strong with Courage Campaign founder Rick Jacobs telling the attendees that California is a “state that is tarnished” with discrimination. Indirectly referring to the Equality Summit and its panel of leaders who populated the stage throughout the whole event, he pointed to the empty stage behind him and said, “There are not a lot of people on this stage. You’re the stage!” And that’s how the rest of the day went.

Lisa Powell, lead facilitator who had worked with the Obama campaign, did a great job in leading the overbooked event, involving the crowd divided into predetermined groups with active sessions which lasted throughout the day and included:

   * Story of Self: finding your voice as an activist. After hearing examples from people telling their stories as to why they’re fighting to repeal Prop 8, Lisa broke down the storytelling technique, handed out a worksheet so that each person can shape their own story, and then each participant told their tale to their own group. Learning how to tell your own story is extremely effective in getting others involved in the movement, or opening the eyes of the opponents to the harm of Prop 8. After the sessions amongst the groups, a few were picked to share their story to the whole crowd. Many heart-wrenching tales were given, the unearthing of the motivation driving these activists.

   * Story of Us: the amazing Mike Bonin lead this session about building the movement, one leader at a time.

   * Voter Persuasion: how to talk to the others in one-on-one encounters. Led by Liz Moore of the SEIU, this was an extremely educational and effective session. After an improvised moment between Lisa Powell and Jenny Pizer, portraying a peaceful interaction between neighbors who voted differently on Prop 8, the groups were given worksheets with various scenarios that they had to improvise amongst themselves. Given tools in how to communicate with the opposition, many learned the power of proper persuasion without making those you disagree with uncomfortable or under attack. The emphasis of persuasion was on baby steps – you can’t change someone’s mind with one conversation.

   * Online Tech Tools: this session, led by Julia Rosen, Online Political Director for the Courage Campaign, debuted the organization’s online, grassroots tool, Equality Hub, which allows individuals and grassroots organizations to effectively plan events, socialize and organize. It also includes a voter phone banking tool that allows the individual to make phone calls from their own homes, similar to the Obama Campaign site. Definitely worth checking out.

   * Into Action: this session broke out into groups that contained practical education on door-to-door canvassing, phone banking, tabling, organizing a political house party and online organizing (which went into further detail about the Equality Hub, but also networking and education about online tools that are effective for planning events and keeping your organization’s members or participants active and updated).

   * Our Commitment to the Cause: Lisa Powell talked about the organization’s commitment, to the movement, but as well as the activists, and referred to the Courage Campaign’s project “Please don’t divorce us . . . “

Inserted throughout the sessions were touching (and amazingly concise) speeches from married couple Jenny Pizer of Lamda Legal and Doreena Wong, who, speaking on the legal and political context of marriage equality, spoke about their years in activism and told the story that after 24 years together, Doreena’s mother felt that Jenny was finally officially a part of the family after marrying her daughter; Torie Osborn spoke on organizing and movement building, focusing on respectful interaction with the opposition and learning how to actively listen; and Mike Bonin, telling his story of self, confessed that after working extremely long hours on the Obama campaign, and feeling ashamed that he didn’t do enough for the No on 8 campaign, promised he will never allow himself to put an LGBT initiative “on the back burner.”

With so much material covered in a relatively small amount of time, it’s a marvel that it was all accomplished, and miraculously, on time and on schedule! These Obama-turned-LGBT and equality campaigners know how to lead a large meeting, communicate and educate, but above all, inspire. Led by multi-generational activists, some new and some experienced, Camp Courage offers something for everyone of all ages and backgrounds. Either this is all new to you and you learn the essential basics, or it’s a refresher on old skills, you don’t leave empty handed.

The Courage Campaign plans to hold many more Camp Courage sessions around the state. They are asking us to vote on where some of them will be. I recommend you do, find one near you (Fresno is already confirmed and they intend to schedule more in San Luis Obsispo, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco) and GO. In order for this movement to propel forward and succeed, we must be educated, we must know how to work together, we must be on the same page, and we must remain inspired. Camp Courage is the step in the right direction. Do not miss out. GO.

Originally posted on UniteTheFight.org

I am re-posting this diary for Bruce Hahne (a NO ON 8 “super-volunteer”) who posted it on Daily Kos earlier today. It deserves to get much wider attention. I like the fact that it not only includes criticisms of the NO ON PROP 8 campaign from an insider but also recommendations on what to do in the next anti-gay ballot measure campaign. I asked Bruce for permission to re-post it to Calitics and he gave it freely.

The post is (VERY LONG) and divided in two parts:  

PART I: Problems with the no-on-8 campaign

and

PART II: Recommendations

_________________________________________________________________

PART I: Problems with the no-on-8 campaign

1. Reliance on focus groups, and the search for magic words

The no-on-8 campaign was focus-group driven and went searching for “magic words” to say to voters rather than following the hearts-and-minds strategy that the marriage equality movement, and the PFLAGs of the world, have been using successfully for years.  From the very first volunteer recruiting meeting that I attended, paid staff made it extremely clear that the campaign had used focus groups to determine a messaging strategy, and that the campaign intended to stick by this messaging strategy.  We were also informed that Dewey Square had been retained by the campaign as the consulting firm, and that Dewey Square “had never lost one of these ballot measure campaigns”.  In September and October, the campaign treated this factoid as sufficient to rebut any and all strategic questions about the campaign itself.

This is the second time that I’ve participated in a stop-the-anti-marriage-ballot measure effort that was “focus-group driven” (the first time was California Proposition 22 back in 2000, which had identical language).  I’ve since resolved that I will not participate in any future pro-LGBT ballot measure effort whose messaging is “focus-group-driven”.  I’ve been burned twice by this approach — I’m not going to be burned a third time.

The focus group approach resulted in a negative-language campaign which made no attempt to persuade voters to vote FOR equal marriage, but instead unsuccessfully attempted to attach a few key words such as “unfair” and “wrong” to the ballot measure.  Specifically, the key messaging of the phone script that thousands of volunteer no-on-8 phone bankers read on the phone was this text:  “Regardless of what you think about marriage, it’s wrong to take away fundamental rights.”  More on what I think about this message later below.

2. Same-sex married couples were invisible

The campaign failed to use the most valuable asset available to the campaign, which was the thousands of already-married California same-sex couples.  This strategic failure appears to be the consequence of the “focus group” strategy which resulted in a conclusion that “the voters just aren’t ready to vote FOR marriage equality.”.  Such an attitude strikes me as an insult to California’s majority-Democratic voting base, and to me fails even a rudimentary sanity check.  Since even the California legislature was willing, twice, to vote for full equal marriage, the voters can handle the same.  I wanted to see a campaign that asked the voters to vote FOR marriage equality.

The campaign could have got newly-married lesbian couple Mitzi and Fritzi and their darling 2-year-old baby Carla on the TV.  Cut an ad where the couple lovingly holding the baby looks into the camera and says “please don’t take our marriage away!”  Closing message: “protect marriage for all California families.  Vote NO on proposition 8.”  Strategically this is a much stronger position to be in.  Look at the messaging that results from this type of ad:

– The language and framing of “protection” and “protection of children” are seized as a no-on-8 value rather than a yes-on-8 value.  To be pro-LGBT is to protect people, to vote no is to protect people.

– Message: No-on-8 is protecting poor innocent women.

– Message: No-on-8 is protecting babies  (Yes, I’m quite willing to use children in ads if the parents consent)

– Message: Yes-on-8 are heartless bastards who want to hurt Mitzi, Fritzi, and poor little baby Carla.

Instead, in October the no-on-8 campaign suddenly found yes-on-8 playing the usual “homosexuals are out to get your children at school!” card (a strategy which should have been NO surprise), and by that point it was too late to reverse the media frame.

3. Refusal to advocate for yes-on-equality

The no-on-8 campaign refused to take a “yes on equal marriage” stance, again insisting that focus groups said that this wouldn’t sell.  Well guess what, those focus groups sure didn’t produce a message that sold — it’s time to try something new.  I will no longer volunteer for a marriage campaign that refuses to take a “yes on equal marriage” stance.

4. Nearly content-free web site

The noonprop8.com web site was awful.  As in, really awful.  As in, “there wasn’t any serious persuasive or well-reasoned content there at all” awful.  I didn’t even realize this problem until an acquaintance, who had clearly been doing some research about the “yes” and “no” arguments, asked me the traditional question of “aren’t domestic partnerships equivalent and sufficient?”  This is the “isn’t separate but equal sufficient?” question, and it’s a very common question from people who are actively thinking about the issue — possible “persuadables”.  I went looking for the official response to this question on the no-on-8 site, blithely assuming that there would surely be an extensive equal-marriage FAQ document somewhere in there, and was stunned to find NOTHING, no basic issues FAQ at all.  There was a basic “fact vs. fiction” document which mostly rebutted anti-LGBT claims about proposition 8, but nothing to answer the obvious questions that persuadables have when they start to seriously think about marriage and LGBT people.

I had to head over to PFLAG to get a well-written response about “why we need marriage equality and not just domestic partnerships [DP]”.  The no-on-8 campaign’s failure to adopt a YES-on-marriage-equality position meant that strategically, the campaign wasn’t willing to put up content that responded to basic and common questions like this.

A related question that also came my way, from a strong ally, was: “what rights, exactly, does prop 8 eliminate?”  The answer actually appears to be “technically, NONE at this time from a California civil perspective” because California domestic partnership already extends ALL California marriage rights to domestic partners, and the federal government doesn’t recognize either status.  A more nuanced approach is necessary to explain why domestic partnership isn’t enough, and that nuance requires going the yes-on-equal-marriage messaging route.  The no-on-8 ballot argument as printed in the California Voter Information Guide claims that there are “nine real differences between marriage and domestic partnerships” but fails to identify what these are, nor does the noonprop8.com web site ever bother to tell us.

5. Botched ballot measure argument text

The no-on-8 ballot arguments as submitted to the official California general election guide look like a right-wing lunatic rant, plus they make severe communications errors.  Per the structure of California’s printed election guides in the ballot measure section, the “yes” side gets the first set of text, then the “no” side gets a rebuttal.  Next, the “no” side gets a section to argue its case for “no”, followed by a closing rebuttal from the “yes” side.

As I write this, I have a copy of my November 2008 California election guide in front of me.

Here is the first paragraph of the “yes” argument.  This is the first paragraph that the reader saw (assuming that anybody actually reads these election guides — this year’s guide was 144 pages long) about proposition 8:

“Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward.  It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

That’s easy for the reader to understand, and it’s probably persuasive to a significant number of people.  “Oh, this is simple and it’s just reaffirming what we’ve already done anyway.  Sounds good to me.”

Next, here’s the initial text of the no-on-8 rebuttal to the above “yes” text.  All capital letters are in the original:

“Don’t be tricked by scare tactics. – PROP 8 DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SCHOOLS

There’s NOT ONE WORD IN 8 ABOUT EDUCATION.”

The no-on-8 rebuttal text goes on like this with its INSANELY HEAVY USE of CAPITAL LETTERS which makes the rebuttal look like a RIGHT-WING CRACKPOT RANT because people who RANDOMLY MASH DOWN THE CAPS LOCK KEY inevitably look like INTERNET CRAZIES as I’m demonstrating RIGHT NOW in this PARAGRAPH!!!  The no-on-8 rebuttal text is literally about 50% all-caps.

The contrast is striking.  The “yes” argument leads with a simple argument in normal text, inviting the reader to join in agreement.  The no-on-8 rebuttal, by contrast, is as if somebody pointed a bullhorn in your face, pulled an argument about schools out of the middle of nowhere (though it is in fact buried in the “yes” text), and started screaming at you.

Note also how the no-on-8 rebuttal begins by repeating a right-wing talking point (“the gays are out to get your children at school!”) and then denying it.  This approach to doing rebuttals is a classic framing mistake.  You can’t defeat an opponent’s frame by simply repeating it and then denying it, because the repetition itself simply reinforces the frame.  Every LGBT supporter who hasn’t already done so needs, desperately, to read George Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant!, which is an introduction to framing and messaging for progressives, written by an expert in cognitive science (Lakoff).  Or for a web-based crash course, you can go right now to

http://www.rockridgeinstitute….

As Lakoff has mentioned in similar trainings, Nixon said “I am not a crook” and people said “oh, crook?  Nixon’s a crook”.

Similarly, as Robert Bray, former director of the SPIN project (www.spinproject.org), noted in a framing training that I took several years ago, if you get up in front of a crowd and say:

“Child molestation?  Child molestation??  This has NOTHING to do with child molestation!!”

Well guess what, yes it does, because you just said it three times.  Congratulations, you lose.

For everybody who contributed to that horrible no-on-8 rebuttal, I hereby require you to go read George Lakoff and stop writing any ballot measure arguments until you’ve written “I WILL NOT REPEAT RIGHT-WING FRAMES” 1000 times on the chalkboard right along with Bart Simpson.

This goes for you too, Geoff Kors (Kors is Executive Director of Equality California, EQCA.org) — every damn time you go on Fox “News” and repeat the right-wing term “tax relief”, you’re playing into right-wing frames that help to elect right-wing Republicans to office. I stopped donating to EQCA (though I did donate specifically to the campaign) because you have a history of going on Fox echoing right-wing language while thinking you’re helping LGBT people.  The Lakoff crash-course web framing training has a discussion of how the frame “tax relief” is destructive to the progressive cause.

6. Fundamental flaws in the no-on-8 phone script and messaging

I disagree with the fundamental approach of the “regardless of what you think about marriage, it’s wrong to deny people rights…” phone script.  This attempt at magic words, which again was probably focus-group driven, is what I’d call “preemptive surrender on our core issue”.  The unwritten preamble that’s IMPLIED by the “regardless…” sentence is:

“[We acknowledge that same-sex marriage is sinful, sick, and dirty, but] regardless of what you think about marriage…”

The Rolling Stone no-on-8 postmortem whose URL I listed earlier agrees with this critique, and refers to this tactic as “affirm[ing] the homophobia of the swing voters it was courting.”

The no-on-8 phone script refused to take a positive stance on marriage but instead conceded that territory to the anti-gay side, leaving no-on-8 to attempt the much weaker magic-word-association game of “unfair” and “wrong”.  I say: bull hockey.  This homophobic phone script sucks.  The best defense is a good offense: we need to GO ON THE OFFENSE (he said, resorting to the caps-lock-key mashing that he had so recently mocked) and claim marriage as our own.  It’s the LGBT community and allies who are protecting marriage and making it better, not yes-on-8.  Same-sex marriage is beautiful — say it!  Say it again!  Here, I’ll do it for you — “Same-sex marriage is beautiful!” Because the more we say that, the more we make it true for everybody.  Focus groups won’t tell you that because we haven’t made it enough of a reality for the focus group participants yet.  The more we refuse to say “same-sex marriage is beautiful”, the more we concede the moral terrain to our opposition.

As with the ballot measure rebuttal, the “regardless of what you think…” language feels like it’s written by people who don’t understand the basic cognitive science issues that Lakoff covers in his books.  If you say “regardless of what you think about marriage”, or equivalently, if you say “it’s not about marriage, it’s actually about X”, you’ve already got people thinking about marriage.  It’s too late to tell them that it’s NOT about marriage, because it IS now about marriage, because you just said “marriage”.  So what thought processes are taking place in the mind of a likely voter?  Probably something like this:

“Well hmm, as long as this person on the phone has brought up the topic of what I think about marriage, what do I think?  Well, I think that marriage is between a man and a woman.  That makes sense.”

I’ll speculate that this phone script may have been focus-group tested to swing a few percentage points of voters, but I’m not buying it.  On a strategic level, it’s a fail.  Pro-LGBT ballot measure campaigns need to get rid of the inside-the-beltway bean-counting tactics and start advocating for marriage equality.

Here’s the message I want to see:  “We believe that ALL California families deserve the freedom to marry, and the protections that marriage provides.  Marriage makes families healthy, protects children, and makes our society stronger.  As Californians, let’s make California a safe, healthy place for ALL families.  Vote NO on 8.”  Note how here I’m seizing language right out of Lakoff’s nurturing-parent worldview: “protection”, “healthy”, “strong society”, “safety”.  This is a winning frame for our side.

7. Failure to anticipate and preempt yes-on-8 messaging.  

This complaint has been covered in other written venues so it probably doesn’t need much reiteration here.  You know for a fact that yes-on-8 is going to use the “they’re after the children!” argument, so for God’s sake hit them first on that and take away their ability to use it.  You also know they’re going to use the “churches will be forced to marry gays!” argument, so defuse or reframe before those words even get out of their mouths.

8. Tactical: people don’t vote after dark in Santa Clara County.  

On election day, the campaign deployed thousands of volunteers to cover polling sites around the state and hand out no-on-8 “palm cards”.  In retrospect this appears to have been a last-ditch hail-Mary attempt to win an additional half a percentage point, or to just make it look like a lot of  volunteers were being mobilized for something constructive, or who knows what.  I had the not-so-fantastic duty, as it turned out, of co-running a “hub site” which was responsible for dispatching volunteers in teams of 2-5 people to slightly over a dozen polling places in the Mountain View, California area.  We had great volunteer turnout, but I don’t think this was an effective ground game or that it persuaded very many voters.  

The no-on-8 campaign appears to have made little to no calculation about vote-by-mail voters and early voters.  In Santa Clara County, vote-by-mail is something like 50% of the vote, perhaps more.  And empirically, we found that almost everybody who does vote physically on election day does so in the morning, not after work.  This put us as co-captains of the election-day hub site into the painful situation of dispatching 50+ volunteers to polling sites after dark (sunset was roughly at 6:00 PM), where as it turned out nobody was voting.  Half of our evening shifts called in to ask if they could be redeployed because they were only seeing 1 voter every 5 minutes, and half of those voters were dropping off sealed absentee ballots which weren’t going to change regardless of how many palm cards we pushed at people (and in the dark??  Come on, what voter wants to have election material pushed at them at 6:30 PM in the dark when they’re just trying to vote and get home?)

9. Tactical: failure to do proper, well-understood election-day get-out-the-vote (GOTV)

So, no-on-8 campaign people: WTF with the election-day GOTV?  When I volunteered for the Jerry McNerney campaign, on election day we did a traditional “aggressive pollcheck-based GOTV”, which works like this:

1. You do GOTV phone calls or door-knocks to all your 1’s and 2’s, which you’ve predetermined from your phone calls in the weeks prior.  For those not versed here in my election jargon: a “1” is a very strong supporter, a “2” is a likely supporter.  Your “1’s” and “2’s” are the people you’re trying to get to the polls.

2. After you’ve finished step 1, it’s now noon, so you send a team to the polling location and look up the posted list of voters who have voted already.  Per California election law, the poll-site staff post this information every few hours and update it.  You work through this posted list and cross off the names of all of your 1’s and 2’s who have voted.

3. Now you do a second round of GOTV phone calls or door-knocks to those who remain on your now-pruned 1’s-and-2’s list.

4. It’s now 4 PM, so you go to the polling location and get the updated list of voters who have voted.  You cross more people off your 1’s and 2’s list.

5. Wash, rinse, repeat until polls close.  You keep phoning 1’s and 2’s who haven’t voted until the polls close or until they vote.

For no-on-8 on election day we had teams covering dozens of key polling locations throughout the state, yet no-on-8 didn’t take the obvious step of having these volunteers get the “voters-who-have-voted so far” information and relay it to whoever was doing the GOTV phone calls.  I don’t understand at all why no-on-8 didn’t do this.  From where I stand, it looks like utter incompetence on the part of the campaign.

10. Insufficient engagement of progressive church allies along their traditional strengths

The no-on-8 campaign could have worked better with its progressive church allies. In September 2008, I offered to campaign staff the possibility of organizing some no-on-8 religious events somewhere around election eve.  I was told in very clear terms, by staff, that “the campaign doesn’t want this” because… wait for it… the FOCUS GROUPS said that it was a bad idea.  In the end, yes-on-8 held a Qualcomm Stadium rally (which apparently sucked badly), and no-on-8 allies independently organized and held several large-scale (for progressive churches) no-on-8 religious services in 3 cities on the same Sunday.  The result, thankfully for the good guys, is that the media reported “religious groups on both sides stage events”. The no-on-8 campaign should be thankful that the churches ignored the focus groups, otherwise the headlines would have said “People of faith hold mass yes-on-8 event” with a picture of some PFOX guy mournfully praying.

To be clear, I had no problem organizing phone banking instead of organizing a religious service, which can be a pain to pull together anyway.  However, when a campaign tells some of its allies that their core competency of “doing religious events and thereby bringing moral credibility to the no-on-8 message” isn’t welcome, it tends to stunt the ability of the allies to help the campaign.

11. Secrecy = Death

In September and on into early October, the campaign actively discouraged me from posting information about phone bank times, days, and locations to the web.  Incredible yet true.  The messaging that I heard from the campaign was “don’t post information about when or where our phone banks are taking place, just leave it to the campaign to communicate this on a week-by-week basis please”.  In the early weeks of the phone banking there was a desperate hunger in the activist community for information about when and where the phone banks were taking place, yet I was actively discouraged from posting information about them on a public blog.  A few weeks later, I heard this message from staff at the phone bank “gee, we just aren’t making our total-call numbers on the phone calls, we don’t understand what the problem is!”  Well, when you actively discourage the progressive community from engaging in precisely the sort of viral advertising and communication that we do best, low volunteer turnout is quite likely to be the result.  A few weeks later, I noted that no-on-8 had finally added a web page at noonprop8.com that publicly listed the phone bank locations, dates, and times… in other words, it was doing in October exactly what I had been told not to do in September.  And sure enough, a week later at the phone bank I heard from staff, “we’re doing great on our phone bank numbers, we’re blowing through these call lists!”  And attendance at phone banking had gone way up.

Activists, please take this lesson to heart: a culture of movement secrecy will fail you every time.  I recommend Gene Sharpe’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action for a discussion how a culture of secrecy can stifle a social change movement.  I’ve had to fight this fight in various activist venues over the years, and it still often doesn’t get through.  People can get paranoid — they may want to overcontrol the volunteers, overcontrol the flow information, control who shows up at events; people get paranoid about “outsiders” or “spies” or whatever, and all that fear is contagious.  Fear strangles a movement.  Fear turns off potential allies.  It prevents a movement from taking the steps necessary to succeed.  If you’re refusing to publish information about when your phone banks are happening because you’re “afraid that spies for the other side might show up”, fire yourself and get new leadership, because you’re killing your own justice movement.  I fully support the concept of message discipline, and I strongly oppose the “do-your-own-thingism” which so often pervades progressive activism and demolishes progressive message coherence, but there’s a difference between enforcing messaging discipline, versus telling your volunteers not to share information about where the upcoming phone banks are located.

12. Failure to understand or use internet and web media  

No-on-8 got its clock cleaned in at least two areas by yes-on-8: Youtube videos, and Google Adwords/Adsense.  No-on-8 appears to have been run as a 1990’s campaign that had limited understanding of internet used as new-media communication.  Yes, there was a (wretched) no-on-8 web site, but yes-on-8 knew how to effectively use newer web technologies while no-on-8 apparently didn’t.

12.1: Youtube: yes-on-8 dominated, no-on-8 failed utterly

These particular comments are specific to YouTube, however they apply to any internet video hosting service that supports user-uploaded content for public viewing.

Technical discussion that I was privy to in the final weeks of the campaign revealed that:

— Yes-on-8 videos were consistently ranked in the top 10 when searching on basic keywords such as “california prop 8”

— Yes-on-8 made a concerted effort to get their volunteers to rank up the videos so that they’d always win in Google’s search algorithm.  And of course, video up-ranking is a computer-and-keyboard based task that can be done by armies of people anywhere in the world… such as, shall we say, to pick a completely non-hypothetical example, Utah.

— No-on-8 comments posted in the comments section of yes-on-8 videos would immediately get downrated by an army of yes-on-8 minions, making it impossible to have an open debate or post rebuttals within the Youtube comments section.

— No-on-8 videos were also posted on Youtube, but initially the no-on-8 campaign didn’t even know enough to tag these videos with appropriate keywords so that they’d hit Google searches for basic terms like “proposition 8”.

— Progressive blogs were doing a lot of “look at this horrible yes-on-8 video, it’s really nasty” web linking, which per Google’s ranking algorithm is a vote FOR the video.  This is a general problem that ballot measure campaigns will need to solve in general: simply doing opposition research by PLAYING an opposition video, or by LINKING to an opposition video, actually helps the opposition.  “Number of views of this video” is a tracked value that presumably contributes to the up-ranking of a YouTube video.

— Even after no-on-8 tagged the videos with appropriate keywords, they never made it into the higher-ranked video lists because yes-on-8 had already invested a lot of time up-ranking their own ads.

RESULT: anybody who searched on anything related to proposition 8 on YouTube always got yes-on-8 videos and ads, and never got no-on-8 ads. This is a TOTAL FAIL for no-on-8.  The campaign needed somebody on the staff who understood the tactics of upranking videos and how the comments systems can be gamed for or against you.  Pay one of those evil “search optimization” firms for some consulting time if you have to.

12.2: The Google AdSense yes-on-8 ad bomb.  

“AdSense” is Google’s ad product that allows web site owners to place Google-brokered ads onto their own web sites.  Don’t confuse this with the ads that appear on www.google.com. For example, go to www.americablog.com and scroll to the bottom, where you’ll probably see a small “Ads by Google” section.  These are “AdSense” ads.  These ads are relayed to the web site by Google’s ad system and are not pre-selected by the web site owner.

Google AdSense is used by hundreds of thousands of web page owners as a way to make some money as a commission from Google by placing the Google-brokered ads onto their site.

On Monday Nov. 3 and Tuesday Nov. 4, yes-on-8 engaged in a mass advertising bid across all “targeted verticals” available within the Google Adsense program for advertisers.  This yes-on-8 advertising also presumably used Google’s geotargeting system, which allows advertisers to pay only to display their ads to viewers believed to be in a certain section of the country.  Geotargeting saves vast quantities of money by allowing the advertiser to only pay to show the web ads to, say, people who are in California rather than people in Florida.

The result of the mass yes-on-8 ad buy was that for hundreds of thousands of different web sites, anybody in California who looked at one of those web pages saw one or more “yes-on-8” ads.  I’d speculate that yes-on-8 did the same thing with Yahoo ads, however I haven’t researched that.  So it’s likely that for all intents and purposes, anybody in the state of California who used the internet on Monday or Tuesday Nov. 3-4 saw a yes-on-8 ad.  That doesn’t mean that the user clicked on the ad and made it to the yes-on-8 web site, but certainly there would have been a lot of click-throughs.

Since the internet has just this year passed newspapers as people’s primary source of news, this yes-on-8 ad buy probably had a significant impact.

While no-on-8 was doing a certain amount of ad buys — there were very sporadic reports of a no-on-8 ad showing up on certain web pages — there was nothing on the scale of the yes-on-8 ad buy.

Pro-LGBT ballot measure campaigns need to understand the dynamics and impact of the “mass message-bombing” that the right wing is using against us — this was done with yard signs on election eve as well, for example.  I don’t know how effective it is, but obviously the anti-LGBT team believes their money was well-spent, because they went ahead and did it.

12.3 Myspace and Facebook.

I don’t use these social networking systems so I can’t speak to how well no-on-8 exploited them compared to yes-on-8, however given no-on-8’s performance in other areas, I’m not optimistic.

Strategically, the principle that we need to understand is this: the Christian evangelical community has a very long history of rapidly adopting to the use of new media technologies for its communication and expansion use.  Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network was built starting from a tiny UHF station back in the days when nobody knew what “UHF” was, and you had to buy the special UHF loop antenna at Radio Shack to even receive his show.  Prior to that, evangelicals effectively used radio in the early days of that technology.  NEWS FLASH: the Christian Right has learned how to use the internet and all of its modern services.  If you’re not savvy about modern internet media, your campaign is at a severe competitive disadvantage.  For the proposition 8 campaign, yes-on-8 completely outmaneuvered no-on-8 in the internet media space.

_______________________________________________________________

PART II: Recommendations

1.  Work proactively, don’t wait until you’re forced to react.  Do pro-LGBT education every year, all the time.

“Peacetime campaigns” appear to be easier than “wartime campaigns”, by which I mean that it appears to be easier to do the right messaging during intervals when there is NOT an anti-LGBT ballot measure coming up.  In my experience, as soon as the LGBT equality movement needs to shift into defend-against-the-ballot-measure mode, all thoughts of long-term messaging and strategy go out the window, and people are in a rush to “mortgage the future on behalf of the present”, as we might say.  So my suggestion is to start doing, or strengthen existing, public visibility and communications actions today, rather than waiting for anti-LGBT groups to put a measure on the ballot.  Start a GSA (gay-straight alliance).  GEt with the local PFLAG and join their speakers’ group, or jumpstart the speakers’ group if they don’t have one that’s active.

2. Tell stories of real same-sex couples.  Aka: “go for the heart, and the head will follow”.

My belief is that all anti-LGBT efforts, rhetoric, and arguments are fundamentally prejudice-based.  Prejudice happens as a part of the built-in human process of category creation: it happens when I put myself into a group called “in-group” or “my tribe”, and I put LGBT people into a different group called “that out-group over there” or “other”.  Once I’ve put the stigmatized group into the category called “other”, I then martial whatever cultural resources or language happen to be available to me to justify my categorization: Bible verses, appeals to history, appeals to “tradition”, appeals to “nature”, etc.  To break through the prejudice requires that we, as LGBT people and allies, humanize the Other.  Doing verse-by-verse rebuttals of Bible verses generally isn’t going to help, because it isn’t the Bible that’s causing the prejudice, it’s the prejudice that causes people to choose to read the Bible in a certain way.  I’ve done the verse-by-verse rebuttal work in the past, and it can be necessary AFTER prejudice reduction has already started, but it’s extremely unlikely to change any minds up front.  As Rev. Peter Gomes has noted (and here I paraphrase), “it is not generally possible to use logic to get somebody out of a position that they didn’t use logic to get into to begin with.”  Start with winning the heart, and then suddenly you’ll find that the Bible part falls into place.

So my suggestion is to seek ongoing ways to humanize and normalize same-sex relationships and marriage (yes, we have to use the M word!) as part of normal, healthy, positive, loving human existence.  This is part of the work that many PFLAG and GSA (gay-straight-alliance) groups have been doing for a while.

Storytelling about real, loving same-sex couples that you know is a win here.  Advocates for equal marriage need to have multiple (true!) stories at their disposal that they can share in social contexts.  Tell people about the lesbian couple raising a kid.  Tell them about the gay couple living down the street who do yardwork and go to football games together.

On the public visibility front, in California the yes-on-marriage movement has made efforts at various periodic visibility actions, typically centered on Valentine’s Day and “tax day” (April 30) when tax returns are due.  “Tax day” events try to get people to hold signs at post offices saying “we want the marriage tax” or similar, using various equal-marriage messaging.

3. Know your framing rules

The usual advice about framing applies.  Don’t repeat the arguments or language of the opposition; reframe the debate.  Read your George Lakoff, please.

4. Anticipate the opposition (duh…)

If and when a ballot measure or similar right-wing attack looms large, anticipate the arguments of the opposition and move to defuse them before they’re even articulated.  You know that the anti-gay crowd is going to say “they’re after our children!”, so come up with ways to preemptively blunt that attack.  My postmortem suggestion to the no-on-8 team was to take the “look at these lovely same-sex couples raising their own happy healthy children!” approach.  Argue that equal marriage protects children, equal marriage promotes healthy families.  We need to own (reclaim) all of those good words: “healthy”, “family”, “strong”, “protection”, etc.

Similarly we now know that the anti-gay industry will use the “churches will lose their tax-exempt status, or be forced to conduct same-sex marriages” or whatever pile of lies it morphs into next week, since that argument was very effective for them in California.  The equal-marriage movement will need to find a way to flush that argument — it unfortunately might require addressing it directly, maybe simply with a lot of credible authorities saying “that’s a lie.”  I saw the “we’ll lose our 501c3 tax-exempt status!” stunt pulled on us in a regional church governing body meeting several years ago, and in that case the argument was stomped on when the respected moderator of the assembly spoke from the floor mike and said he had checked with multiple attorneys and that the claim was simply not true. But it required a well-known, trusted authority figure to say it.

5. Campaigns: understand and use internet media

Use of a variety of forms of internet media is now a mandatory part of any ballot measure campaign’s media strategy.  For those who haven’t been watching, in 2008 “the web” surpassed print newspapers in the ranking of Americans’ primary news source.  It’s no longer acceptable to slap a few HTML pages up and call it a web site.  Your campaign’s senior media director must understand the use of social network sites such as MySpace and FaceBook, the use of online campaign-produced and activist-produced videos, viral marketing, and techniques for up-ranking videos and the attack techniques that your opposition can use to downrank you.  You need to know the difference between Google AdWords and Google AdSense, and how to use Google Analytics — with similar knowledge of Yahoo’s advertising offerings.  You need to have a campaign budget for banner ad and keyword-targeted internet ad buys.  You need to know how to build an online activist base and ask them via email to take action, both online and offline.

Because whether you’re appropriately using the internet or not, I guarantee you that the anti-LGBT  movement knows how to use the technology, and will crush you in a demographic space (voters under 29) that ought to be strongly pro-LGBT if you’re not equally savvy.

6. Campaigns: understand ballot-casting patterns and do proper election-day GOTV

When do people vote in your state?  How do people vote in your state?  Does your state have early voting?  Vote-by-mail?  What percentage of people use these voting options?  Which demographic groups use them — your supporters or your non-supporters?  Whom do you need to turn out, how, and when?  These are nuts-and-bolts questions which are critical to any election ground game.  If 50% of the people in a county vote by mail, 20% vote the morning of election day, and 25% vote between noon and 5 PM by dropping off pre-sealed absentee ballots, it’s not an effective use of your volunteer base to attempt in-person voter persuasion on election day at the polls.  Your GOTV efforts need to start whenever people start to receive ballots.  In many states, that’s several weeks prior to election day.

And for the love of Mike, for counties where election-day turnout matters, do a proper phone-call-based GOTV.  Have pre-generated lists of 1’s and 2’s and call them.  Then call them again.  Keep calling them or knocking on their doors until they tell you OK, they’ve voted already.  This approach is old-school, and it still works… if people haven’t already voted by mail, that is.

_____

Despite the enormous pain of the passage of proposition 8, the good news is that despite a badly botched no-on-8 campaign, support for marriage equality in California has shifted from about 40% to about 50% in just 8 years.  The “tipping point” years that we’re in right now are particularly painful, because it’s right when you’re just under 50% support that your opposition throws the most money, the most resources, the most of everything at you.  They know that it’s endgame now — they have to pull out all the stops now to preserve hetero privilege before public opinion shifts permanently in favor of LGBT equality on yet another front.

Proposition 8 will, in the end, go down in flames.  It might happen in 2009, if the California Supreme Court accurately recognizes that when the tyranny of the majority gangs up on a scapegoated minority to deny equal protection, it’s a “revision” of the California constitution rather than a simple constitutional modification.  Or it might not happen for 20 years, when a no-longer-hardcore-right U.S. Supreme Court gets the LGBT version of Loving vs. Virginia and issues a blanket invalidation of all of the residual state anti-marriage laws in those states that haven’t already bothered to repeal them.  Or it might happen via California voter repeal action within the next few years.  We don’t yet know when marriage equality will happen.  What we do know is that the message of the full humanity of LGBT people works, it resonates, it changes hearts and minds.  Now let’s transform our ballot measure messaging from a weak negative into a strong “yes-on-marriage” positive, stop using focus groups, and fix our internet and election-week tactics.  If we can do that, victory for marriage equality will arrive sooner, and much more easily, than we might ever expect.

_____________________________________

Bruce Hahne is a sporadic LGBT equality activist, and a former board member of More Light Presbyterians (mlp.org).  He can be reached at hahne at io dot com.  

The opinions I’ve expressed in this essay are mine, i.e. I don’t speak for any organization in which I presently serve, or have served.

Copyright (c) 2008 by Bruce Hahne.  All rights reserved.  Non-commercial, non-profit republication and forwarding of this essay as part of efforts to support LGBT equality is permitted and encouraged.  For all other reuse, please contact the author.  

Conservatives have for decades cultivated a politics of victimhood – presenting themselves as victims of some group, usually liberal and often an oppressed minority, in order to gain sympathy for their insane beliefs and to delegitimize progressive ideas and actions. We’re witnessing it on Proposition 8 as well, and now the media is playing along. The result is a massive distortion of the true effects of Prop 8, and the normalization of support for discriminatory policy.

The specific case is that of Margie Christofferson, who quit her job as a manager at LA’s El Coyote Restaurant under pressure from activists and customers angry at her donation of $100 to the Yes on 8 campaign. Her journey from oppressor to victim has been aided by Steve Lopez of the LA Times, who wrote a deeply flawed column on Sunday casting Christofferson as a sympathetic figure:

Margie Christoffersen didn’t make it very far into our conversation before she cracked. Chest heaving, tears streaming, she reached for her husband Wayne’s hand and then mine, squeezing as if she’d never let go.

“I’ve almost had a nervous breakdown. It’s been the worst thing that’s ever happened to me,” she sobbed as curious patrons at a Farmers Market coffee shop looked on, wondering what calamity had visited this poor woman who’s an honest 6 feet tall, with hair as blond as the sun.

That sets the tone for a column that blames the victims of Prop 8 for making this poor woman cry, and Lopez isn’t above repeating disputed claims that riot police showed up at El Coyote during a recent rally. But perhaps the most troubling part of the column was Lopez’ normalization of her support for discrimination:

But I didn’t like what I was hearing about the vilification of Margie Christoffersen and others in California being targeted for the crime of voting their conscience.

“Voting our conscience” has been one of the key methods by which Prop 8 supporters have escaped responsibility for their actions or even acknowledging what Prop 8 was – an attack on the legal equality of thousands of Californians merely for their sexual orientation. When framed this way the Yes on 8 position becomes almost unassailable, immune to criticism. “They’re just voting their conscience,” we’re supposed to think, and not be allowed to ask them to face the realities of what they have done, not be allowed to criticize them for voting to take away equal rights and destroy existing marriages, and not be allowed to act with our own conscience by denying those who backed Prop 8 our patronage. Each of those acts is cast as an aggressive and hurtful act, where the oppressed are cast as oppressors.

Lopez mentions almost in passing that “thousands [of gay people] feel as though their civil rights have been violated” but their concerns and views don’t get the sob story treatment Margie Christofferson got – even though she knew full well what she was giving money for, and continues to believe that her vote for Prop 8 was the right move. As Lisa Derrick notes she has never apologized to her once-loyal customers for what she did. Obviously she feels no need to offer any such apology.

Lopez’ column writes the real victims of Prop 8 out of the story and replaces them with their victimizers. Once again GLBT Californians and their fundamental rights are treated as either deviant or invisible. The only people whose opinions matter are those who oppose gay rights, and if someone dares call it out then they become  the oppressors. Standing up for gay rights, for marriage equality, becomes itself an act of hate.

Margie Christofferson is not a sympathetic figure. She is someone in deep denial of reality, who is unwilling to reconcile her relationships with her own intolerance. It’s not the rest of Los Angeles’s job to play along with it, to enable it, to pretend as if it doesn’t exist. Doing so merely continues the decades of injustice that comes when good people do nothing and discrimination is treated as normal.

It would be nice if the traditional media would recognize this. It’s not likely that they will. Martin Luther King, Jr. may be venerated today but he was a controversial figure in his day who received FAR more criticism from the media than credit, who was told that the March on Washington was a dangerous provocation that should not be attempted. The Civil Rights Movement rightly refused to let such concern trolling stop them. We who are part of the marriage equality movement would do well to learn that lesson.

Cross-posted at DailyKos.

On the “Day Without a Gay”, I took the day off from work where I decided to use my time and skills where I was strongest.  As a librarian I have a knack of finding sources and providing them to the researcher potential of sources.  

So on that day, I headed to a major research library (I work at a community college library that would be limited in resources on what I needed to do), where I would have access to electronic resources, with print sources nearby, if needed.

Already by reading one book and one article, I learned about past Mormon Church activism that defeated the Equal Rights Amendment, but also learned how an anti-gay amendment was defeated in Idaho because the No campaign successfully appealed to Mormons in that state: http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

The idea here is if people do their research, they can make golden discoveries.  I believe if activists and a campaign are more information literate, they will be smarter in their outreach, strategies, let alone help the general public become more information literate as well, on the issue of LGBT rights and Marriage Equality.

Campaigning Against Anti-Gay Ballot Initiatives Bibliography

Includes scholarly articles on key population studies, articles on the framing of same sex marriage, impact of anti-gay campaigns, particularly from the 90s to the Present, and other related articles.  There’s also a few articles on closely related, but has the potential of having key insight and are likely worth reading.  This is a ROUGH DRAFT, meaning a future version may be split into sections, let alone other useful journal article citations will likely be added (especially as more articles come out on the Proposition 8 campaign, its impact afterwards, and this year’s earlier California Supreme Court ruling, for example).

References

Adam, B. D. (2003, Apr.). The Defense of Marriage Act and American Exceptionalism: The “Gay Marriage” Panic in the United States. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 12(2), 259-276. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Agee, C. (2006, Sept.). Gayola: Police Professionalization and the Politics of San Francisco’s Gay Bars, 1950-1968. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 15(3), 462-489. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

All Eyes on California this November. (2008, Sept.). Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, 15(5), 22-23. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost LGBT Life

Amendment 2 and the Denver Post. (1993, Sept. 19). The Denver Post, Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from NewsBank

Andersen, R. & Fenter, T. (2008). Cohort Differences in Tolerance of Homosexuality: Attitudinal Change in Canada and the United States, 1981-2000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 311-330. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from Oxford University Press Journals

Angle, M. (1994, Oct. 15). Initiatives: Vox Populi or Professional Ploy?. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 2982-2982. Retrieved Oct. 15, 1994, from EBSCOhost Military & Government Collection

Barrett, J. (2008, Dec. 16). The Age of Ignorance. Advocate, 1021, 4-4.

Bernstein, M. (2002). Identities and Politics: Toward a Historical Understanding of the Lesbian and Gay Movement. Social Science History, 26(3), 531-581. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Brandzel, A. L. (2005). Queering Citizenship?: Same-Sex Marriage and the State. GLQ, 11(2), 171-204. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Broaddus, T. (2000). Vote No If You Believe in Marriage: Lessons from the No On Knight/No On Proposition 22 Campaign. Berkeley Women’s Law Journal, 15, 1-13. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost LGBT Life

Brown, F. (1993, Sept. 19). Amendment 2 Attitudes Unchanged Since the Election. Denver Post, Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from NewsBank

Brumbaugh, S. M., Sanchez, L. A., Nock, S. L., & Wright, J. D. (2008, May). Attitudes Toward Gay Marriage in States Undergoing Marriage Law Transformation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 345-359. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from Synergy Blackwell Premium

A California Travesty. (1978, Oct. 28).  New Republic, 179, 8-8.

Camp, B. J. (2008). Mobilizing the Base and Embarrassing the Opposition: Defense of Marriage Referenda and Cross-Cutting Electoral Cleavages. Sociological Perspectives, 51(4), 713-733. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from Caliber

Campbell, D. E. & Monson, J. Q. (2008). The Religion Card: Gay Marriage and the 2004 Presidential Collection. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 399-419. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from Oxford University Press Journals Online.

Carbado, D. W. (1999). Black Men on Race, Gender, & Sexuality: A Critical Reader. New York: New York University Press.

Carpenter, C. & Gates, G. J. (2008, Aug.). Gay and Lesbian Partnership: Evidence from California. Demography, 45(3), 573-590. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Chan, P. (2008, June). Stonewalling through Schizophrenia: An Anti-Gay Rights Culture in Hong Kong?. Sexuality & Culture, 12(2), 71-87. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost LGBT Life

Chapman, T., Leib, J. I., & Webster, G. (2007). Race, the Creative Class, and Political Geographies of Same Sex Marriage in Georgia. Southeastern Geographer, 47(1), 27-54. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Chauncey, G. (2004). “What Gay Studies Taught the Court”: The Historians’ Amicus Brief in Lawrence v. Texas. GLQ, 10(3), 509-538. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Colorado to Vote on Barring Gay-Rights Laws. (1992, May 24).  New York Times. p. 31-31.

Dailey, J. D. & Farley, P. (1996). Colorado’s Amendment 2: A Result in Search of a Reason. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 20(1), 215-277. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from EBSCOhost Academic Search Elite

Denike, M. (2007). Religion, Rights, and Relationships: The Dream of Relational Equality. Hypatia, 22(1), 71-91. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Diamond, S. (1994). The Christian Right’s Anti-Gay Agenda. Humanist, 54(4), 32-34. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost LGBT Life

Dickinson, T. (2008, Dec. 11). Same-Sex Setback. Rolling Stone, 45-47. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost Academic Search Complete

Donovan, T. & Bowler, S. (1997). Direct Democracy and Minority Rights: Opinions on Anti-Gay and Lesbian Ballot Initiatives. In S. L. Witt & S. McCorkle (Eds.), Anti-Gay Rights: Assessing Voter Initiatives (p. 107-126). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Donovan, T. & Bowler, S. (1998, July). Direct Democracy and Minority Rights: An Extension. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 1020-1024. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost Academic Search Complete

Douglas, D. (1997). Taking the Initiative: Anti-Homosexual Propaganda of the Oregon Citizen’s Alliance. In S. L. Witt & S. McCorkle (Eds.), Anti-Gay Rights: Assessing Voter Initiatives (p. 17-32). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Egan, P. J. & Sherrill, K. (2005, Apr.). Marriage and the Shifting Priorities of a New Generation of Lesbians and Gays. PS, Political Science & Politics, 38(2), 229-232. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from ProQuest Research Library

Ehrenreich, B. (2008, Dec. 16). Anatomy of a Failed Campaign. Advocate, 1021, 34-36.

Feigenbaum, E. F. (2007). Heterosexual Privilege: The Political and the Personal. Hypatia, 22(1), 1-9. Retrieved Nov. 9, 2008, from ProQuest GenderWatch

Feltner, T. (2001). Working Anita Bryant: The Impact of Christian Anti-Gay Activism on Lesbian and Gay Movement Claims. Social Problems, 48(3), 411-428. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from Caliber

Ferguson, A. (2007). Gay Marriage: An American and Feminist Dilemma. Hypatia, 22(1), 39-57. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Friedman, S. (1993, Oct.). Colorado’s Amendment 2 Blocked. ABA Journal, 79(10), 48-49. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from EBSCOhost Academic Search Elite

Gajewski, K. A. (2001, Jan.). Civil Liberties Watch. Humanist, 61(1), 38-38. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from EBSCOhost Academic Search Elite

Garlinger, P. P. (2004). “In All But Name”: Marriage and the Meaning of Homosexuality. Discourse, 26(3), 41-72. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Gerstmann, E. (1999). The Constitutional Underclass : Gays, Lesbians, and the Failure of Class-Based Equal Protection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Goldberg-Hiller, J. (2004). The Limits to Union : Same-Sex Marriage and the Politics of Civil Rights. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Graff, E. J. (2004).  What is Marriage For? Boston: Beacon Press.

Greenberg, D., Gazmararian, J., & Burke, V. (2008). Marriage Amendment Ballots of 2004: Could State Residents Read Them?. Social Work in Public Health, 23(5), 1-11. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from Haworth Press Online

Griffin, H. (2000, Mar.). Their Own Received Them Not: African American Lesbians and Gays in Black Churches. Theology & Sexuality: The Journal of the Institute for the Study of Christianity & Sexuality, 12, 88-100. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost LGBT Life

Gross, M. J. (2008, Dec. 16). Pride and Prejudice. Advocate, 1021, 30-33.

Haider-Markel, D. P. & Joslyn, M. R. (2005, Apr.). Attributions and the Regulation of Marriage: Considering the Parallels Between Race and Homosexuality. PS, Political Science & Politics, 38(2), 233-239. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from ProQuest Research Library

Haider-Markel, D. P., Querze, A., & Lindaman, K. (2007). Lose, Win, or Draw? A Reexamination of Direct Democracy and Minority Rights. Political Research Quarterly, 60(2), 304-314. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from Oxford University Press Journals

Harder, L. (2007). Rights of Love: the State and Intimate Relationships in Canada and the United States. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 14(2), 155-181. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Herek, G. M. & Capitanio, J. P. (1995). Black Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 32(2), 95-105. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from EBSCOhost Academic Search Elite

Herek, G. M. & Gonzalez-Rivera, M. (2006, May). Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Among U.S. Residents of Mexican Descent. Journal of Sex Research, 43(2), 122-135. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost Academic Search Complete

Herek, G. M. (1988, Nov.). Heterosexuals’ Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men: Correlates and Gender Differences.  Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451-477. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from EBSCOhost Academic Search Elite

Hoesly, C. (2005, July). Reforming Direct Democracy: Lessons From Oregon. California Law Review, 93(4), 1191-1248. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost Academic Search Complete

Howard-Hassmann, R. E. (2001). Gay Rights and the Right to a Family: Conflicts Between Liberal and Illiberal Belief Systems. Human Rights Quarterly, 23, 73-95. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Jordan, M. D. (Ed.) (2006).  Authorizing Marriage?: Canon, Tradition, and Critique in the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Joslin, C. G. (1997). Equal Protection and Anti-Gay Legislation: Dismantling the Legacy of Bowers v. Hardwick. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 32(1), 225-247.

Kales, J. (1994, Jan. 28). A Referendum in Maine: Voting on Gay Rights. Commonweal, 7-8. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from EBSCOhost Academic Search Elite

Klein, A. (2005, June 6). Backers of Gay Marriage Bans Finding Success in States. CongressDaily AM, 13-15. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from EBSCOhost Military & Government Collection

Kollman, k. (2007, June). Same-Sex Unions: The Globalization of an Idea. International Studies Quarterly, 51(2), 329-357. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from Synergy Blackwell Premium

Lannutti, P. J. & Lachlan, K. A. (2007). Assessing Attitude toward Same-Sex Marriage: Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Homosexuality, 53(4), 113-133. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from Haworth Press

Lavely, V. A. (2007, Oct.). The Path to Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage: Reconciling the Inconsistencies Between Marriage and Adoption Cases. UCLA Law Review, 55(1), 247-291. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost LGBT Life

Lenhardt, R. A. (2008, Aug.). Beyond Analogy: Perez v. Sharp, Antimiscegenation Law, and the Fight for Same-Sex Marriage. California Law Review, 96(4), 839-900. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost Academic Search Complete

Lenhardt, R. A., Cooper, E. B., Foster, S. R., & Katyal, S. K. (2008, May). Symposium: Forty Years of Loving: Confronting Issues of Race, Sexuality, and the Family in the Twenty-first Century: Introduction. Fordham Law Review, 76, Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from LexisNexis Academic

Leonard, A. S. (1993, Sept.). Sexual Orientation and the Workplace: A Rapidly Developing Field. Labor Law Journal, 44(9), 574-583. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost Business Source Complete

Levin, D. (1997). The Constitution as Rhetorical Symbol in Western Anti-Gay Initiatives. In S. L. Witt & S. McCorkle (Eds.), Anti-Gay Rights: Assessing Voter Initiatives (p. 33-50). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Lewis, G. B. (2003). Black-White Differences in Attitudes toward Homosexuality and Gay Rights. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 59-78. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from Oxford University Press Journals

Liang, C. T. & Alimo, C. (2005, May). The Impact of White Heterosexual Students’ Interactions on Attitudes Toward Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 237-250. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Loftus, J. (2001, Oct.). America’s Liberalization in Attitudes Toward Homosexuality, 1973 to 1998. American Sociological Review, 66(5), 762-782. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from ProQuest Research Library

Marriage: The Bliss and the Battle. (2008, July 1). Advocate, 34-39. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost LGBT Life

McCullom, R. (2008, Dec. 16). Blackout on Proposition 8. Advocate, 1021, 32-33.

McCorkle, S. & Most, M. G. (1997). Fear and Loathing on the Editorial Page: An Analysis of Idaho’s Anti-Gay Initiative. In S. L. Witt & S. McCorkle (Eds.), Anti-Gay Rights: Assessing Voter Initiatives (p. 63-76). Westport, CT: Praeger.

McCorkle, S. & Most, M. G. (1997). The Idaho Anti-Gay Initiative: A Chronology of Events. In S. L. Witt & S. McCorkle (Eds.), Anti-Gay Rights: Assessing Voter Initiatives (p. 51-62). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Mertus, J. (2007). The Rejection of Human Rights Framings: The Case of LGBT Advocacy in the US. Human Rights Quarterly, 29, 1036-1064. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Michigan DOMA law ends domestic partner benefits. (2007, Mar.). Contemporary Sexuality, 41(3), 16-16. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost LGBT Life

Muhlestein, R. G. (2007). The Case against Same-Sex Marriage. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 40(3), 1-39.

Ochalla, B. (2006, Nov.). Apathy is the Enemy in Wisconsin Ballot Battle. Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, 13(6), 5-5. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from EBSCOhost Academic Search Elite

Ott, B. L. & Acki, E. (2002). The Politics of Negotiating Public Tragedy: Media Framing of the Matthew Shepard Murder. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 5(3), 483-505. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Our Mutual Joy.(2008, Dec. 15). Newsweek, 152(24), 28-31.

O’Rourke, S. P. & Lee Dellinger, L. K. (1997). Romer v. Evans: The Centerpiece of the American Gay-Rights Debate. In S. L. Witt & S. McCorkle (Eds.), Anti-Gay Rights: Assessing Voter Initiatives (p. 133-140). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Pearson, W. (2004). Interrogating the Epistemology of the Bedroom: Same-Sex Marriage and Sexual Citizenship in Canada. Discourse, 26(3), 136-165. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Peterson, K. (2004, Sept.). 50-state rundown on gay marriage laws. Contemporary Sexuality, 38(9), 8-9. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost LGBT Life

Peterson, K. (2006, May). Job Benefits for Gay Partners Targeted. Contemporary Sexuality, 40(5), 17-18. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from ProQuest GenderWatch

Pittman, H. (1997). In Their Own Words: Conversations with Campaign Leaders. In S. L. Witt & S. McCorkle (Eds.), Anti-Gay Rights: Assessing Voter Initiatives (p. 77-94). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Rauch, J. (2004). Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. New York: Holt.

Riggle, E. D., Thomas, J. D., & Rostosky, S. S. (2005, Apr.). The Marriage Debate and Minority Stress. PS, Political Science & Politics, 38(2), 221-224. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from ProQuest Research Library

Rivenbark, L. (1998, Aug. 17). Gay Discrimination Ban Survives Attack. Federal Times, 34, 4-4.

Rofes, E. (2000). After California Votes to Limit Marriage: A Call for Direct Action and Civil Disobedience. Social Policy, 30(4), 31-35. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost LGBT Life

Rollins, J. & Hirsch, H. N. (2003). Sexual Identities and Political Engagements: A Queer Survey. Social Politics, 10(3), 290-313. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Roque Ramirez, H. N. (2003, Apr.). “That’s My Place!” Negotiating Racial, Sexual and Gender Politics in San Francisco’s Gay Latino Alliance, 1975-1983. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 12(2), 224-258. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Rothblum, E. D., Balsam, K. F., & Solomon, S. E. (2008). Comparison of Same-Sex Couples Who Were Married in Massachusetts, Had Domestic Partnerships in California, or Had Civil Unions in Vermont. Journal of Family Issues, 29(1), 48-78. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008 from SAGE Full-Text Collections

Rowe, R. N. (2006, May). Homosexual Teachers in the Classroom. Clearing House, 79(5), 207-208. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost LGBT Life

Russell, G. M. & Richards, J. A. (2003, June). Stressor and Resilience Factors for Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Confronting Antigay Politics. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3/4), 313-328. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from Springer Standard Collection

Russell, G. M. (2000). Voted Out: The Psychological Consequences of Anti-Gay Politics. New York: New York University Press.

Russell, T. (2008, Mar.). The Color of Discipline: Civil Rights and Black Sexuality. American Quarterly, 60(1), 101-128. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Saucier, D. A. & Cawman, A. J. (2004). Civil Unions in Vermont: Political Attitudes, Religious Fundamentalism, and Sexual Prejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 48(1), 1-18. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from Haworth Press Online

Schechory, M. & Ziv, R. (2007). Relationships Between Gender Role Attitudes, Role Division, and Perception of Equity among Heterosexual, Gay and Lesbian Couples. Sex Roles, 56, 629-638. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from Springer Standard Collection

Schmitt, M. T., Lehmiller, J. J., & Walsh, A. L. (2007). The Role of Heterosexual Identity Threat in Differential Support for Same Sex ‘Civil Unions’  versus ‘Marriages’. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(4), 443-455. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from SAGE Full-Text Collections

Shaw, S. (1997). No Longer a Sleeping Giant: The Re-Awakening of Religious Conservatives in American Politics. In S. L. Witt & S. McCorkle (Eds.), Anti-Gay Rights: Assessing Voter Initiatives (p. 7-16). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Smith, D. A. & Tolbert, C. J. (2001). The Initiative to Party: Partisanship and Ballot Initiatives in California. Party Politics, 7(6), 739-757. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from SAGE Full-Text Collections

Smith, M. (2007). Framing Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and the United States: Goodridge, Halpern and the National Boundaries of Political Discourse. Social & Legal Studies, 16(1), 5-26. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from SAGE Full-Text Collections

Smith, R. R. (1997). Secular Anti-Gay Advocacy in the Springfield, Missouri, Bias Crime Ordinance Debate. In S. L. Witt & S. McCorkle (Eds.), Anti-Gay Rights: Assessing Voter Initiatives (p. 95-106). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Stein, A. (2001). The Stranger Next Door : The Story of a Small Community’s Battle over Sex, Faith, and Civil Rights. Boston: Beacon Press.

Stewart-Winter, T. (2005, Mar.). Listening to the “Yes on 36” Voter. Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, 12(2), 24-27. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from EBSCOhost Academic Search Elite

Strasser, M. (2001). Same-Sex Marriage Referenda and the Constitution: On Hunter, Romer, AND Electoral Process Guarantees. Albany Law Review, 64(3), 949-981. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost LGBT Life

Sullivan, A. (Ed.) (2004). Same-sex marriage, pro and con : a reader, New York: Vintage Books.

Sullivan, M. (2003). Homophobia, History, and Homosexuality: Trends for Sexual Minorities. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 8(2/3), 1-14. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost LGBT Life

Testa, R. J., Kinder, B. N., & Ironson, G. (1987, May). Heterosexual Bias in the Perception of Loving Relationships of Gay Males and Lesbians. Journal of Sex Research, 23(2), 163-172. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from EBSCOhost Academic Search Elite

Traiman, L. (2008, July). A Brief History of Domestic Partnerships. The Gay & Lesbian Review, 15(4), 23-24. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from ProQuest GenderWatch

Washington, P. (2001). Who Gets to Drink from the Fountain to Freedom?: Homophobia in Communities of Color. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 13(1/2), 117-131. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from Haworth Press Online

Werum, R. & Winders, B. (2001, Aug.). Who’s “In” and Who’s “Out”: State Fragmentation and the Struggle Over Gay Rights, 1974-1999. Social Problems, 48(3), 386-410. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from ProQuest Research Library

Wilkinson, W. W. & Roys, A. C. (2005, Feb.). The Components of Sexual Orientation, Religiosity, and Heterosexuals’ Impressions of Gay Men and Lesbians. Journal of Social Psychology, 145(1), 65-83. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost Academic Search Complete

Williams, W. & Retter, Y. (2003). Gay & Lesbian Rights in the United States: A Documentary History. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Wins on Gay Rights in Four of Five Cities. (2001, Nov.). Contemporary Sexuality, 35(11), 10-10. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2008, from EBSCOhost LGBT Life

Witt, S. L. & Alm, L. R. (1997). The Correlates of Tolerance: Analyzing the Statewide Votes on Anti-Gay Initiatives. In S. L. Witt & S. McCorkle (Eds.), Anti-Gay Rights: Assessing Voter Initiatives (p. 127-132). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Witt. S. L & McCorkle. S. (Ed.). (1997). Anti-Gay Rights: Assessing Voter Initiatives. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Yang, B. (2006). Seeing Loving in Gay Marriages Parallels of Asian American History and the Same-Sex Marriage Debates. Amerasia Journal, 32(1), 33-44.

Young, N. J. (2007). “The ERA is a Moral Issue”: The Mormon Church, LDS Women, and the Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment. American Quarterly, 59, 623-644. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2008, from Project MUSE

Bibliography compiled by norm, librarian.

 

I will be on KRXA at 8 this morning to discuss this and other topics in California politics

The Public Policy Institute of California released a poll today about voter decision-making on Prop 8 (and some other props, including 1A and 4). Their conclusion is that Prop 8 passed because its Republican and evangelical supporters were highly motivated to pass it, whereas Prop 8 opponents lacked a similar sense of urgency. From the PPIC press release:

   * Evangelical or born-again Christians (85%) were far more likely than others (42%) to vote yes.

   * Three in four Republicans (77%) voted yes, two in three Democrats (65%) voted no, and independents were more closely divided (52% yes, 48% no).

   * Supporters of Republican presidential candidate John McCain were far more likely than those who backed President-elect Barack Obama to vote yes (85% vs. 30%).

   * Latinos (61%) were more likely than whites (50%) to vote yes; and 57 percent of Latinos, Asians, and blacks combined voted yes. (Samples sizes for Asians and blacks are too small to report separately.)

   * Voters without a college degree (62%) were far more likely than college graduates (43%) to vote yes.

   * While most voters (65%) consider the outcome of Proposition 8 to be very important, the measure’s supporters (74%) are far more likely than those who voted no (59%) to view the outcome as very important.

The poll also indicated that support for same-sex marriage was split, 47% in favor, 48% against, and 5% opposed. That suggests to me that the Yes on 8 campaign’s lying ads about the effects of Prop 8 had some effect on voter behavior.

Still, if the poll’s conclusions about voter motivation are accurate, then it adds more fuel to the criticisms of the No on 8 campaign for not having done an effective job in mobilizing its own base to vote, and not doing a good enough job of creating a sense of urgency around the proposition – and in reaching out to other communities, including communities of color. If and when this goes back to the ballot we can expect the anti-marriage forces to be highly motivated to vote. Our side, the supporters of marriage equality, need to be motivated as well.

The PPIC poll has a wealth of other information on state politics, from approval ratings of the governor and the legislature (Arnold fares better than the Legislature – 42% approve of Arnold, 49% disapprove, 9% no opinion; and a whopping 66% disapprove of the Legislature) and public opinion on the initiative process.