The recent LGBT leadership summit in San Bernardino left a very bad taste in my mouth. Much has been posted on blogs trying to gloss over the concerns of LGBT communities of color, who were effectively silenced and steamrolled by proponents of 2010. Posts on a variety of blogs characterized the meeting as the community coming together. I beg to differ.

It began with a re-writing of history. Was I wrong to think that the leadership summit was about coming to a decision-making process about moving forward on marriage equality? Apparently I was under the wrong impression. Because it all came down to this, perfectly encapsulated by the constant cries out for “I want a date!” That was my take-away from the meeting.

The proponents of 2010 co-opted the discussion at every turn, using scare-tactics, mis-information, revisionist history and mob rule that would make Karl Rove proud. They purposefully dismissed and denigrated any sort of “so-called” expert, i.e., campaign consultants, if they didn’t fall in line and support their position. If the facts were not to their liking, well, then, anecdotal evidence and their “feeling” that we will win should have been evidence enough for the community to put up the resources and gird for battle next year.

The audience reception to the Prepare to Prevail presentation was polite, at best. However, Love Honor Cherish used their time not to present their plan and make the case based on its merits, but rather attack Prepare to Prevail and go into campaign mode and use every emotional appeal to whip the room into a frenzy of “2010! 2010!” I was appalled by the personal attacks spoken from the podium. It was clear they expected everyone to “fall in line” under their leadership. They offered zero empirical evidence that anything they proposed was achievable. I was offended by their accusation that those who had legitimate concerns about proceeding hastily were defeatists. It was also clear they had no support from communities of color, education groups, labor, or any other coalition partners necessary to win a statewide election. When both groups were asked specifically about what work was being done in communities of color, you could see 2010 proponents scrambling to confer to come up with a generic response. The primary spokesperson for LHC was obviously not ready for primetime, employing the problematic and simplistic analogy to the Civil Rights Movement, and throwing in a completely inaccurate reference to Rosa Parks (to a chorus of boos). As a community, we need to be careful to honor and respect movements that have preceded us, and while we apply lessons learned from other movements, each is unique and quick comparisons have the potential to exacerbate tensions between the LGBT community and coalition partners.

Of course, because the room was stacked, they ate it up. I was left stunned by what I had just witnessed. If there was any hope of respectful dialogue or of the community coming together, it was dashed by LHC’s invective and campaign of personal destruction. They, and 2010 supporters, knowing the summit was being streamed live, even used that fact to co-opt the proceedings. At one point, while we were debating taking a (non-binding) straw poll at the end of the day, someone commandeered the microphone and basically said, “Our opponents are watching us online laughing. If we don’t take a vote now on 2010, they win.” By the end of the day, there was no clear consensus on anything, and a coalition of the willing charged ahead to create a campaign plan (with the caveat, expressed by some, that there be no veto power when and if presented after their upcoming meeting in Los Angeles this weekend).

I understand the passion in the room, but the histrionics were over the top. There was a serious miscalculation and underestimation of our opponents and the political landscape next year. This decision to engage in a ballot initiative cannot be made in a vacuum. Our community does not understand the power that reactionary, conservative ballot initiatives have in shaping the electorate. It was a gun control ballot initiative that torpedoed Tom Bradley’s bid for governor in 1982 (semi-debunking the origins of the “Bradley effect.” It was Prop 187 that helped Pete Wilson win reelection, even though his approval ratings were horrible. The possibility of a 2010 initiative to restrict services to undocumented immigrants was outright dismissed as “not a problem.” It is a problem, because that initiative will pull conservatives out of the woodwork to vote for that initiative and at the same time, against our rights. We do not yet have meaningful partnerships with immigrants’ rights groups. There was no strong coalition in place in 2008, and one does not exist for 2010. (It should be noted that the room was at most, 8% people of color, no one publicly identified themselves as representing any union or labor organization, and fewer than 15% were from Northern California, even though half of the pro-marriage equality voters needed for victory reside here.)

This attitude is symptomatic of the sense of entitlement and privilege on display in San Bernardino. Why should our straight allies, educators, communities of color, labor, care about marriage equality? It was presumptuous for the LGBT community to expect support in 2008 when the LGBT community is absent in the discussion of other communities’ struggles. So think carefully about 2010. Have those relationships with communities we need on our side to win been cultivated? A campaign without prominent support from communities of color will be a failed campaign, and that weakness will absolutely be exploited by the opposition. I was rocked out of my seat when, on more than one occasion, it was asked, “Do we need people of color to win? Can’t we just register thousands of new, young voters?” It was quite evident in the room that the LGBT community in California needs to have a frank, honest discussion about race because pretending it’s not an issue in the marriage campaign is naïve.

So I’m tired of being bashed for wanting to achieve equality by building a progressive movement in California. This is not about 2010 versus 2012. This is about doing the work necessary to attain, and then, defend, our full equality. It’s like cramming for an exam. You may stay up all night reading 10 weeks of material in one night, and pass the exam. But what happens if you have to take another exam in the same subject? Had you prepared and learned the material all along, no problem. Instead, by taking the shortcut, you have to re-cram for the next exam. It’s the same in politics. If you build a broad coalition to support marriage equality, it will be much easier to prevail and then defend our victory. It is not realistic to assume that we can just go back to the ballot box year after year until we win.

I do want to commend all the presenters for Prepare to Prevail. I felt they were composed, passionate about achieving marriage equality, and understood that the campaign to achieve full equality is part of building a strong and lasting progressive movement. I also feel that LHC owes the community a public apology for their attacks on those who had a different opinion than theirs. Vigorous debate is healthy. Attacks are destructive.