Yesterday, a number of organizations—led by people of color LGBT organizations—issued a statement entitled Prepare to Prevail: Why We Must Wait in Order to Win, which made the case that we are not ready to return to the ballot in November 2010, and recommitted to the work to move voters our way. The American Civil Liberties Union put out a statement making the case that benchmarks be established before a date for returning to the ballot is set.
In response, Love Honor Cherish issued a statement of its own entitled Why We Cannot Wait, arguing that we should return to the ballot in 2010.
We thought this was a good opportunity to share our present thinking.
In late May, we told the community that, preliminarily, based on all we knew at the time, we believed we should return to the ballot in 2010. We also promised that we would not go back to the ballot on our own, but only together with coalition partners. And we said that, before we concluded what the right timing was, we would perform extensive “due diligence,” speaking with and listening to our coalition partners, volunteers in the field, donors, political consultants, pollsters, and many others. As we said in late May, a roadmap to victory includes:
- A realistic and executable fundraising plan. We must be able to raise between $25 and $50 million, with a good portion of that coming early on in the campaign when much of the persuasion work needs to be done.
- A governance structure that works. We need a campaign structure that engenders the confidence of the community and balances the need for inclusive representation with the need to act decisively and quickly.
- A winnable campaign plan. Polling shows that we have approximately the same level of support for marriage equality as we did when Proposition 8 passed. We need to know that if we can raise the funds and have a solid governance structure, we have a well-thought out program of how we are going to prevail.
- A commitment to doing the hard work. In order to move enough people to win, we must be out speaking to voters who are not yet with us, relentlessly. Tomorrow we will report on the results of our field efforts to date.
Our threshold has always been that we want to go back to the ballot at the earliest time that we have a strong chance of prevailing.
Throughout the state, our community has been having lively discussions and debate about when and how to return to the ballot. Equality California has joined Marriage Equality USA and a number of other coalition partners on the Get Engaged Tour, which solicits grassroots feedback on what the next initiative campaign should look like and when it should take place. The results of the Get Engaged Tour are being compiled by ME USA and will be shared with community leaders at the July 25 Community Leadership Summit in San Bernardino.
Information is power. We all owe it to ourselves to be as informed as possible as we develop our opinion about what we think is the best time to go back to the ballot.
To assist the community in reaching a decision, Equality California has asked several well-respected political consultants who represent different perspectives to provide us with answers to the following two questions:
Based on your professional experience with ballot initiatives and the research and data that is presently available, when do you recommend returning to the ballot to try to overturn Proposition 8: 2010, 2012, or other? On what do you base your conclusion?
What do you believe are the most important steps that the LGBT community and its allies must take to prepare to return to the ballot?
Each of the people below has generously volunteered to provide responses within the week, and we will post them when we receive them. We will also submit them to ME USA for inclusion in the Get Engaged Tour results.
- Mark Armour, Armour Media, who served as Al Gore’s press secretary, leads an LA-based progressive media and political consulting firm. Armour has successfully led ballot initiative campaigns to require the generation of more clean energy and to tax tobacco companies to support early childhood development in California.
- Sue Burnside, Burnside & Associates, is a Los Angeles-based grassroots/field consultant. Her firm, the first national field-consulting firm in the country, specializes in sophisticated grassroots field operations, turnout programs, ground-based vote-by-mail programs and coalition building. Burnside co-chairs the National Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund's Campaign Board. The Victory Fund is dedicated to electing openly LGBT officials to office.
- Rick Claussen, Partner, Goddard Claussen is among the most respected and successful Republican consultants in California. His firm has won 93% of its statewide ballot issue campaigns in California and many other states.
- Jill Darling served as Associate Director of the award-winning Los Angeles Times Poll and the Times/Bloomberg Poll from 1988 until the Times Poll was disbanded in 2008. She has national, state and local election exit polling expertise, after two decades of designing samples, questionnaires, and analysis models for primaries, general elections and absentee voter polls. Formerly president of the Pacific Association of Public Opinion Researchers, she is currently working on a history of gay-related legislation in California.
- Dave Fleischer. For many years, Dave was Director of Organizing and Training for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. In that role, Fleischer played a lead part in devising strategy on literally dozens of LGBT-related ballot initiatives. Fleischer is now advising the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center’s Vote for Equality canvass project, the most extensive door-to-door effort on marriage equality in California.
- Gale Kaufman, President, Kaufman Campaign Consultants, a Sacramento-based Democratic political consultant, was awarded, in March 2006, the coveted “National Campaign Manager of the Year” by the American Association of Political Consultants for leading the coalition that defeated all four of Governor Schwarzenegger’s Special Election Initiatives in November 2005. She represents many unions including California’s largest union, the California Teachers’ Association, and is known as one of the most formidable ballot campaign specialists in California.
- Richie Ross is one of the most revered Democratic political consultants in Sacramento. A former aide to Cesar Chavez and organizer for the United Farm Workers, Ross ran the successful Proposition 98 campaign that guarantees schools a certain percentage of tax revenues. He was top adviser and consultant to former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, a long-time leader on immigration-related initiatives, a top adviser to many Latino candidates and has one of California’s most successful records of winning elections over the last 30 years.
We also want to know what you think. We invite your comments both now and as their statements are posted. Please leave us your feedback and questions, and know that we’re keeping everyone’s perspective in mind as we weigh out this tough decision.
Posts
40 comments:
I think we should go back to the ballot as soon as we have $25-$40 million in the bank and pledges for millions of volunteer hours. If the community can demonstrate that level of commitment to a cause, then it ought to have its day at the ballot box regardless of polling. If not, then we shouldn't pretend that we can win a race that our community has not gotten behind.
It is impossible to raise that kind of money in the absence of a campaign - people donate in large sums to actual campaigns, not potential ones. Especially for social-issue campaigns.
Two of the people listed here as consultants also consulted on the No on 8 campaign. Please don't make the same mistake of heavily relying on consultants to make all the decisions. Look where that got us. At the Equality Summit and elsewhere, it was clearly stated that relying so much on the consultants was a big mistake. Geoff Kors said so himself.
Also, didn't EQCA polls its members and find huge support for 2010. Not that all are educated enough to make this decision, ignoring the community is what tarnished EQCA's name in the first place.
Tread carefully.
Is it true that there are people in Marriage Equality USA who do not support fighting for ENDA?
And.. What is EQCA doing to support ENDA?
I attended the Get Engaged Tour at the OCEC monthly meeting. We sat at tables, World Cafe style (though very loosely followed - I would recommend true Juanita Brown style for better results).
When it was finished, leaders said that this decision would be based entirely on stats, money and numbers; in other words, science.
Culling the community members is very different than using science. I would caution leaders to make a clean and swift decision and tell the community that science is going to be the determining factor. Asking everyone and then telling them that what they say is not going to be used - breaks confidence. It feels like contempt.
If science is going to be used, lets use it well and get on board.
I echo the sentiments regarding science. Community support behind this issue is obviously very important, but I think we all know we can get people motivated to action this time around. Some of the major mistakes of the last campaign were that we didn't have a campaign structure that was effective, and many people who were not well versed on how to win campaigns were making key political and strategic decisions. Just because the community supports going back to the ballot, doesn't mean that that's the wisest path. Let's see the numbers, let's hear the prevailing political wisdom (i hear that consultants do not recommend going back to the ballot on an affirmative measure unless you're polling at 60% in favor.), and then let's decide based on the data. Sure you gotta have hope, but don't think for a minute that Obama's people weren't looking at the numbers and calculating how they were going to win. Let's not make the same mistake twice in California. The political establishment will take our community even less seriously than they do now.
They who hesitate are lost.
I think this is all great news, but here is what I noticed last year... we need to get better organized. I am on so many email chains and groups, yet I didn't hear about half the rallies here in San Diego until hours before... There is so much support out there both gay and straight and we need to tap into it by getting well organized. I hear about so many different groups out there.. but we need ONE to take the lead and get this moving... After Prop 8 passed, there were like 4 rallies here... spread out by different groups... One BIG rally would have made a huge impression... My 2 cents anyway!!!
I just read your blog and wonder where the leadership is on this issue from EQCA.
First, it was, we want to wait for poll results. Then, we want to poll our members. Then, we have to assess our fundraising. Now, we want advice from a group of experts (when previous experts, such as those hired by the No on Campaign, have been wrong on LGBT issues in the past). Everytime a benchmark is hit, a new benchmark is created.
Although we agree that any campaign must be winnable and must be smartly run, no "expert" can foretell the future. And no expert can foretell the impact on our community and each of our own lives from not trying in 2010 even though, with hard work, we know we can win in 2010 (as confirmed by "experts" Amy Simon and David Binder).
The fear of losing can be paralyzing. But I fear being set back decades if we allow the fear of losing to swamp the best of ourselves -- which means fighting for justice and equality even where we may suffer consequences for doing so. Isn't that why those of us that are gay came out in the first place?
Please add as EQCA's next benchmark, stories from those couples who want to get married before 2012 and from those kids who wonder if it's okay to be gay, who wonder if they will grow up to be strong and tough and visionary or so scared that they can't act for what's right without polls, full community consensus, major donors, and advice of experts.
"Also, didn't EQCA polls its members and find huge support for 2010. Not that all are educated enough to make this decision, ignoring the community is what tarnished EQCA's name in the first place.
Tread carefully."
The exact same thing can be said about Courage Campaign and the newly-formed grassroots organizations. Even though a supposed 80+% of Courage Campaign's members voted for 2010, they still don't speak for the entire community, nor are they all completely educated enough on how to create a campaign for people of color.
A main argument against the No on 8 campaign was that they created a blanket campaign and weren't inclusive. How hard is it to understand that we should be listening to POC groups that have been working since before Prop 8 was even on the ballot?....the same groups that were ignored in the last campaign?
Fuck strategy, and consultants, and playing it safe, and waiting for some future better time.
Prop 8 is evil. You don't put off fighting evil. End of story. Commit to 2010 first (NOW!) and THEN work like hell to assure success.
Yes, I agree that Prop 8 is evil and an affront to the California Constitution.
But that does not mean that a ballot proposition is the best way to combat the evil.
Especially one that we have a 68% chance of losing. (68% of ALL California propositions go down to defeat).
Changing the hearts and mind of the 52.3% of the electorate who believed that they needed to define marriage as between a man and a woman in the constitution is what I want to do.
I fully agree with this. We will be more successful if we wait for 2012. We need to be better strategists and not just act from emotion. Good move.
Changing our WORDS - simply fighting for Same-Gender Marriage - will do much more to help our cause than continuing to fight for "Same-Sex" marriage.
Let's change the words we use NOW - there's no fundraising or polling needed - just STOP accepting our opponent's terminology - STOP the media and everyone on our side from saying "same-sex" and use "same-gender" instead.
It de-fangs the issue considerably, and lets straight people consider that our relationships can be about things other than sex - just as theirs are.
Lee
I feel like this is a runaway train. The same mistakes are being made, we are trying to run over each other without respect for differing opinions. OUr social service programs are suffering still from the last go round. the editorial put out by Honor Pac, API Equality and the Jordan/Rustin coalition shows that there is a problem with POC communities on this issue. By warning to tread carefully, does that mean it is acceptable to run over the POC groups who are taking leadership and telling the true stories in our communities? Just like last year? And then who will be the first ones out of the gate saying see those people didn't support us? This is how this happens!
The damage from last year's campaign HAS NOT BEEN HEALED. Hiring one person of color does not fix this situation and the editorial by the POC groups shows this clearly.
So "tread carefully" can also mean don't treat people the way we have been treated.
We need to go to the ballot box in a year when Obama is NOT running so that element of the population that came out and voted for him won't be there because although they voted for him....they voted against us.
It's a shame that so many people, including EQCA, are trying to jump the gun. The fight to be the "leader" of the next campaign is not helpful. Love Honor Cherish is the worst of these groups with their insistence that we move forward regardless of any information.
Further, the argument that being thoughtful and listening to several grassroots groups which, I might add, are largely groups that work with minorities is not "inclusive" really baffles me. This IS the more inclusive approach. The mistakes that are being made are stemming from the Courage Campaign and EQCA battle of egos and this is a step in the right direction.
The response letter from Love Honor Cherish was self serving, manipulative, and wrong.
"A main argument against the No on 8 campaign was that they created a blanket campaign and weren't inclusive. How hard is it to understand that we should be listening to POC groups that have been working since before Prop 8 was even on the ballot?....the same groups that were ignored in the last campaign?"
They have been involved. Heavily. The Prevail statement was sent out of leftfield - they did not go personally to the pro-2010 groups with whom they work closely to discuss this. They went to the press. And they do not speak for all POC groups either. Some do in fact support 2010 and have even signed Love, Honor, Cherish' pro-2010 statement.
"I feel like this is a runaway train. The same mistakes are being made, we are trying to run over each other without respect for differing opinions. OUr social service programs are suffering still from the last go round. the editorial put out by Honor Pac, API Equality and the Jordan/Rustin coalition shows that there is a problem with POC communities on this issue. By warning to tread carefully, does that mean it is acceptable to run over the POC groups who are taking leadership and telling the true stories in our communities? Just like last year? And then who will be the first ones out of the gate saying see those people didn't support us? This is how this happens!
"The damage from last year's campaign HAS NOT BEEN HEALED. Hiring one person of color does not fix this situation and the editorial by the POC groups shows this clearly."
OK, but from what I'm seeing, a lot of the POC groups are realigning themselves with those who ran the No on 8 campaign, the very ones who ran them over. What kind of statement is this making? "Tread carefully" applies to all in this.
Also, not all POC groups agree with the Prevail statement.
I was at the very 1st Love Honor Cherish meeting where John Henning clearly stated that he and LHC will not listen or take orders from any group ever again and that they plan to lead the next campaign. Their approach ever since has been to bludgeon anyone and everyone with 2010..no matter what. Their refusal to have any other kind of dialog or even listen to anyone else's position is not productive. Not to mention LHC has no experience running a campaign or doing political consulting work.
Yes we need a law on the books to ensure all those little LGBT kids out there can grow up not thinking they're freaks. But the law is only one piece of it. We can be changing hearts and minds everyday no matter when we go back to the ballot, and we need to weigh the costs of a what another loss would mean for our community...mentally, politically, strategically, etc.
Seriously, how can we wait to stand up for our rights? Don't fight until you're certain you can win? Maybe it's time for the leadership of EQCA to step aside, it appears they've lost the fire in their belly. Besides, if we wait until 2012, when Obama is running for re-election, we'll have to listen to endless commercials of him saying that he does NOT support same sex marriage. I'm already tired of hearing that! 2010 seems like a clear choice to me.
I am already working on a Courage Campaign equality team: going from door to door and meeting with community groups in my area. It's work. I live in a community where Prop 8 gained nearly 50% of the vote. And, I've found many allies. It has been very encouraging. But it's work.
I do not want to be doing this for 10 years.
California voters can repeal civil rights by a simple majority. That is wrong. We need to protect civil rights from the initiative.
Even if we win in 2010, we will need to defend the win in 2012. If we do not go to the ballot in 2010, I suspect the anti-gay groups will pull something else out of their arsenal. Will they take the fight back to the schools? Will they challenge the right to adopt? I do not know.
But I fear we will not get to rest for years to come.
To "Anonymous" 5:15 p.m. -
John Henning from Love Honor Cherish here. Your recollection of our first meeting after the election is flat wrong. Love Honor Cherish has no designs to run the next campaign, and never has. Most people in our leadership, including me, have other careers to occupy us. We would like nothing better than to have the next campaign ably run by capable professionals.
However, we're also not going to outsource the decision about when and how we get our rights back to others simply because they may have more "experience" with political campaigns or political consulting. We did that last year -- raising $500k, in fact, which went directly to the campaign via EQCA's PAC -- and look how that turned out.
You seem to be terribly afraid of the "costs" of another loss at the ballot box -- as you put it, "mentally, physically, strategically, etc." I am afraid of the costs of not trying to win. Perhaps you have made your peace with Prop 8, but I and many others are dying a little every day that Prop 8 stays on the books. With poll numbers showing we are already ahead 50% to 42% before we even get started with a campaign, it is not even a close question for us. We must try again in 2010.
It's true that LHC has stood firm on 2010 along the way. You can call that stubborn or you can call it just being sure that we're right. But the fact is, our position has stood the test of time. Many have followed us, and many others are cheering us on from the sidelines. If we were really as unreasonable as you contend, I doubt we would draw that sort of support.
I recently told a straight friend of mine that some people in the gay community were hesitant to work to repeal Prop 8 in 2010, and would rather wait until a future time. He asked me two questions: What are they afraid of? And, is this really important to them?
I didn't have a good answer to either question.
Do you?
-- John Henning (my actual name)
Instead of spending tens of millions of dollars going to the ballot in 2010, we should spend millions of dollars on a hearts-and-minds campaign.
People who voted Yes on 8 have no compelling reason to change their votes - if anything, the success of Yes reinforces the notion that they were "right". And after a campaign like 08 voters are sick of hearing about it. That leaves the potential for backlash.
We should fight evil - but we should fight smart. We're angry, but if we act out of that emotion we stand to lose the larger fight.
I am a straight, married mother of four little boys. I felt that the passing of Prop 8 was disgusting and shameful. I know that it would be difficult for me to understand having to wait to be given your due rights, but I think it should be about the science and polling. It comes down to whether the initiative is more likely to pass during an election year with Obama once again running or during a non-election year. I have a feeling that the democrats will not come out in the same force as the last election. The republicans, on the other hand, will likely come out in droves to try to boot Obama out. What is the breakdown of people who vote during non election years? Are they more educated in general, which would help our cause; or generally older which would hurt our cause? This is an emotional issue but the decision should be based on facts. I agree with others here that there seems to be a lack of collaborative leadership on our side. The pro-Prop 8 campaign was very organized. They seemed to have spent their money wisely. There were plenty of last minute scare-tactic commercials and the churches were organized about letting their members know how to vote. We must be the same. For example, I saw an internet commercial with Ellen opposing Prop 8, but why wasn't this on TV? According to the papers, a lot of money was spent in both campaigns, but I think the pro-Prop 8 people spent the money more efficiently. Regardless of when we go back to the ballot box, our family will be there to support the LGBT community.
Sent from my iPhone
It sounds like the next ballot initiative should be a vote on Love Honor Cherish vs. EQCA vs. Courage Campaign.
We may be tired, but so are our opponents. I think we will do better in 2010 than in 2012. In 2012, Obama will be on the ballot again and motivate a lot of voters who will vote for him but against us. In 2010, a lot of those voters will stay home. I suspect that a lot of the people who donated to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign will, for various reasons, some economic and some as a result of the retaliation against them, will not donate to another proposition against us. The longer we wait, the more people forget our anger and hurt.
Marriage Equality USA supports and is listed as a sponsor of ENDA.
I'm confused by the religious groups' position against 2010. Didn't Christ die because his views were not held by the majority at the time. Isn't the point of Christianity to try to do what is right even if there is the risk of losing? How can religious groups support the idea that we shouldn't try to enact justice in the world until we're sure we can win.
"We may be tired, but so are our opponents. I think we will do better in 2010 than in 2012. In 2012, Obama will be on the ballot again and motivate a lot of voters who will vote for him but against us. In 2010, a lot of those voters will stay home. I suspect that a lot of the people who donated to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign will, for various reasons, some economic and some as a result of the retaliation against them, will not donate to another proposition against us. The longer we wait, the more people forget our anger and hurt."
What makes you think those voters will stay home? If you pay attention to the news, one of the main headlines on LA Times just yesterday was the introduction of a MAJOR anti-immigration initiative on the 2010 ballot. Same-sex marriage and immigration are hot topics that the conservative right wing would just LOVE to come out to the ballot box and rally against. If the POC groups are really being paid attention to like LHC and many of the grassroots groups are claiming, then those going for 2010 and saying things like "there'll be less people coming out for midterm elections" would recognize that the "less opponents coming out" theory is a major fallacy.
How can we even know what some of the true mistakes were made in the last campaign when we haven't even received a final audit of where the money went? How are we going to know that IF we can raise nearly $80million, what the most effective way to spend it wil be? How to disperse the money? Which communities to give the money to? Answer those questions before griping about losing valuable time and momentum. Yes, Obama's campaign won because of momentum but there was a great amount of strategy involved too.
Who says this statement is coming out of left field? Does it even matter? At the end of the day it's a shame that the main points made in the Prepare to Prevail statement are STILL being ignored and 2010 folks are just focusing on the fact that they weren't given a heads up. To say that the POC groups have to report back to LHC and the grassroots before publicly raising their concerns is just hypocritical. All the media coverage has been about 2010 without any talk of the cons, so who here is REALLY pissed about power? The groups on this statement are ones that are laying the groundwork in their communities for long-term change rather than changing a small percentage of the population by a certain deadline. The fact that they're being pushed aside and being accused of pulling the race card and selling out because they're not jumping on the bandwagon is a shame and major LGBT community FAIL.
The point of the Prevail statement was to invoke dialog because if you want to be fully inclusive you'll have to look at both sides - not get pissed off when not everyone says "we're FIRED UP about 2010!" This isn't just about an absolute deadline because the ballot box is NOT gonna solve all our marriage equality issues. It's about making sure that when we do, we won't have to go back again and again and again. When's anyone on the 2010 bandwagon gonna address that issue? Make some REAL change.
To those going for 2010 and invalidating the work of POC groups that have been involved with this for years: show us how to run a campaign in THEIR languages in a way THEY can understand. Tell us how to run a campaign to change the hearts and minds of African American, Latino, Thai, Korean, Japanese, Filipino, Khmer, Indian, Afghani, Pakistani, Indonesian, Malaysian, Vietnamese, Samoan [and god i can go on forever..] communities. In a way that will change their viewpoint for the long-term so that they won't be swayed by the conservatives if this goes to the ballot again. Tell us how to do this in less than 476 days and maybe I'll jump onto your 2010 bandwagon too.
You said they should've told you before? Well they're telling you their issues now. How are you gonna address them other than taking up arms against the ones fighting for the same cause as you - EQUALITY?
I'm so tired of this ultra cautious, go slow by much of our "leadership". I'd rather fight back and lose than not fight back at all. If we fail to go back to the ballot in 2010 it will been seen as a huge victory by those who oppose marriage equality and energize their movement. It's important that we prove to them that we will never back down. If there's not going to to be a ballot measure in California in 2010, I'll send my money to the folks in Maine instead or where ever people are willing to actually take a stand.
A hearts and minds campaign has nothing to do with passing a ballot initiative.
If any of this philosophy is included in a repeal campaign the organizers of this campaign must be able to explain to us - the people that are expected to give money (at the very least) - how the 2010 hearts and minds magic show differs from the 2008 version.
And this campaign has to be more than simply a darker color. A less white version of crap just results in darker crap.
I saw the polling - at a very rapid pace - at the SF meeting last night (7/14) and although lots of information was gathered and presented, none of it seemed to frame Prop 8 as anything other than a way to defend marriage. We aren't asking any new questions. We aren't testing any new messages. We are using the frame and the language of our opponents and we are being defensive and foolish.
I want Prop 8 repealed now, but I'm not going to participate in a wimpy, whiny, victim-y campaign that basically has us on our knees begging religious zealots to please be kind to us.
We were chopped out of the state constitution. We are the the first minority population to have an asterisk placed beside our citizenship since African Americans were finally liberated in the 1960s.
I don't care when we repeal this shit but we better do it with a sense of our own righteousness and an awareness of history and demand justice not ask for it.
We must first convince ourselves - LGBTs activists as well the far too many of us that are ambivalent - as well as our straight allies (Democrats in particular) that take us for granted and cheer us on from the sidelines. They need to get out of their closets and join us in this battle with money and in the street.
No one will be convinced - friends or foes - if we rely upon a soft sell hearts and minds campaign.
"I'd rather fight back and lose than not fight back at all. If we fail to go back to the ballot in 2010 it will been seen as a huge victory by those who oppose marriage equality and energize their movement."
If you want to fight back, talk to people who are not same-sex marriage supporters and convince them that we do deserve equality. The ballot box isn't the answer for everything. And even if we do win at the ballot box in 2010, what makes you think the right wing won't go back and try to strike down marriage equality in 2012? It's not just about votes and swaying people during a 3-month campaign. What happens after that?
Patrick Conners - point well taken. The "momentum" and being "fired up" fantasyland is NOT strategy.
So ridiculous...we as a gay community are not organized at all!!!!!! We should be so outraged and all we do is sit on our buts.....complaining about how we feel slided and how change should happen......but. only a. Small percentage of us is out there in the front lines ......demanding equality!
Confused.......
Hi, I really want to thank everyone for the amazing feedback and discussion. We’ve heard a lot of perspectives over the past few days, and months, from political experts and consultants, from polling our members, from town hall meetings across the state, and from our coalition partners. We’ve been active participants in the Get Engaged Tour, and look forward to hearing the report back from Marriage Equality USA. We also have been on the ground talking to individual Californians about the freedom to marry, finding out what it would take to get them to vote with us.
We are working closely with many other organizations and leaders and know a decision has to be made, and soon. Believe me, I know the waiting is the worst part, but I know we won’t win unless our movement is unified and organized.
Early next week I’ll be sharing both an update on our field efforts and the feedback I’ve received from the various political experts I mentioned in this post.
For us to win marriage back, we have to take it back to the ballot. That’s what I came to California to help do…as soon as it is possible to win. The ‘when’ and the ‘how’ will be a BIG decision that requires the wisdom of our entire, diverse community. I know we are up to it, though.
–Marc Solomon
I have been married for 18 years. It is asinine for any couple over 18 to be denied the same right. I NEVER thought 8 would pass.
The analysis I studied, and the few people I know who voted for it (shocker there) said it came down to religion. (again surprise it was upheld) Many on this BLOG have mentioned the power and volatility of language. Consider ceding the word and taking the right. I had heard mention of possible legislation confirming that any marriage is a religious institute and not to be interfered by the state, effectively making all legal unions civic unions between two adults (etc) and separating the license from the ceremony.
But whatever is done, needs to be soon, with lots of noise and web based organization.
Well, if Marc would actually read his email for once, he'd find THIS in there, the ideal and more comprehensive proposal than just "Repeal Prop 8":
http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2009/06/real-equality-of-marriage-act.html
A REAL "Equality of Marriage Act"
Section 1.
Article 1, Section 7.5 of the Constitution of the State of California is repealed.
Section 2.
Article 1, Section 32 is added to the Constitution of the State of California, to read:
Section 32.
(a) Marriage shall in this State consist of a private contract.
(b) The State shall not infringe upon, legislate, regulate, license, prohibit, or restrict any private contract of Marriage in this State, including on the basis of race, religion, creed, gender, color, national origin, age, or sexual orientation, except for the following:
(1) All such contracts shall only be voluntary and between two unrelated and competent consenting adults or emancipated minors;
(2) No competent consenting adult or emancipated minor may enter into any such contract more than once at any given time;
(3) To preserve the free exercise of religion, no church, no religious institution, or no religious organization shall be required to recognize, solemnize, enact, bear witness to, commemorate, celebrate, or enforce any private contract of Marriage in this State;
(4) All marriages previously licensed by this State or other States shall be considered valid and enforceable private contracts of Marriage in this State;
(5) All laws, rights and privileges associated with marriages previously licensed by this State shall be considered valid and enforceable as part of all private contracts of Marriages in this State;
(6) All such contracts shall be considered as licenses for the purposes of recognition by other States.
(c) No contract of Marriage shall override or supersede any prenuptial agreement unless specifically stated in the contract of Marriage.
(d) This Section enumerates a fundamental right of the People of California.
(e) All other constitutional or statutory provisions found to be in conflict with this Section shall be null and void only in relation to the provisions of this Section.
Section 3.
All references in the California Codes that refer to “husband” or “wife” or their respective genders (“his,” “he”, “him,” “hers,” “she,” “her,” etc.) shall be legally construed to be gender-neutral.
Section 4.
Should any other initiative be on the ballot concurrent with this initiative, this initiative shall supersede and the others shall be null and void.
Section 5.
This Section shall be effective immediately upon ratification by the People of California.
--------------
So c'mon Marc, put this into play.
Post a Comment