Why Prop. 8 Won

Failing to see why a victory for Prop 8 is "stunning." It passed before, it'll pass again.

I think the thing that should REALLY be focused on here is the sheer fact that this prop passed mainly w/ support of liberal & minority voters.
Forget the church, forget religion, it came down to cultural views on gay marriage. Of course, the church & religion is easy to lay the blame on, so...
The conservative voter turnout for this election was way low, dismal in fact.
This comes as no surprise since many are disenchanted w/ the election process/outcome.
It comes down to a feeling of "why should I vote if whatever I vote for is going to get overruled by slick lawyers & the court system?"
It began back in 1994 w/ prop 187 & it seems like it'll be the case w/ prop 8.
I will bet $$$ to doughnuts the vote will be overturned by the courts in a matter of a few short months or that an opposing proposition will be put on the ballots soon.
On a personal observation, it was comments made by the Honorable Mayor Newsom of San Francisco & used by the "yes on 8" campaign ads ("It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not!") that made the tone against prop 8 seem arrogant.
I don't like prop 8, but the voters of CA voted, made their voices heard & regardless of a narrow 52:48 popular vote result, the people spoke.
Imagine if the McCain campaign whined about the popular vote, which by the way also stood @ 52:48 margin :) henry

I voted for the poor sods to have the right to marry, but the people of this state have voiced their opinion and you have lost. Stop the protesting as this is only pissing people off more, including myself who was in favor of same sex marriage. Gay people say its not their choice (which after taking phsycology and other classes associated, plus having several gay friends might be 50% true in my opinion as most of it seems to stem from abuse and negative past experiences in childhood and adolescense ). This would make it chemical imbalances like many other things we have drugs for.

I love how Catholics, Mormons and Protestants are called out in the opening line. The truth is, the Black and Hispanic voters pushed this issue over the line more than any other group. What rights are lost by homosexuals in California over this definition of marriage? None. It's interesting to me that the very people who claim to be victims of intolerance, are the least tolerant of people with opposing views...picketing churches. "Mormons are hated by everyone." Wow. What is wrong with OUR freedom of speech, with OUR right to vote as citizens. Tolerance for homosexuals is already clearly accepted by allowing ALL the rights of married couples, with the one exception of the definition of marriage. Just because minority groups often scream the loudest, you can't negate the fact that the people have spoken out.

I opened this article hoping to see some FACTS. You know, like 71% of African-Americans voted yes on Prop 8.

But nope, it's the authors personal views skewing someones hard work so this article will fit his personal agenda of how evil religion is.

Send this guy back to the News-Press.

What I think is confusing is how prop 8 was labeled as a "anti-gay" proposition when it was only about gay marriage. Nobody has called for the abolition of gays/lesbians. Again, media bias, agenda & interpretation :) henry

We just have to keep putting in initiatives every year until we get gay marriage in California. What frosts me is how the churches can expend so many resources and still maintain their tax-free status. Why did that Pasadena Episcopal church get investigated for one comment of its Priest, while a vast campaign was orchestrated by Evangelicals, Mormons, and Catholics with no questioning of the tax-free status.

OMG -the acclaimed scholar, the much acclaimed,UCSB religious studies program..how many times did you use the word acclaimed, where did you learn to write? And then... “The issue of traditional marriage brought together this wild, very unlikely coalition.....You have the Catholics, who can’t stand the evangelical Protestants, who can’t stand the Catholics, and then the Mormons, who are outcasts, and hated by everyone." This is academia? No,this is an example of tenured professors gone wild. This statement sounds like it came form Joe Q. Public, acclaimed ordinary Joe. What a shoddy story.

nocomply: perhaps the abuse and negative experience was a result of squashed identity? just postulating
snugspout: it is lawful to lobby for a cause as a 501c3, not for a candidate
hank: it's obviously anti-gay, otherwise why would anyone care if gays marry - certainly is causes no harm to existing marriages, does it? No, it's clearly anti-gay, just admit it and move on (get some gay friends, for God's sake)
majordeagan: I have no idea what you are talking about. maybe pull back on the meds
Rae: your arguments seem to argue for allowing the definition of marriage to be extended to gays, maybe you need to find something that is actually wrong with gay marriage (good luck)

Everyone, thanks for posting, its part of the process of coming to grips with change.

While the polliing data are still being analyzed, I'm afraid this article misses the mark.

The single biggest reason for the loss was an ineffective and inept campaign strategy. Despite raising record shattering amounts of money and volunteers who worked their hearts out, the overarching state campaign strategy was a huge flop.

The state campaign violated numerous standard rules of political campaigns and in so doing lost a double digit lead to very effective scare tactics and voter apathy. Too often elections are won by who stays home.

The campaign began by allowing the proponents to define the debate and was never able to recover. Every emotional ad received an intellectual response.

Rather than organizing local organizing committees across the state, the campaign was run by a small cadre of people who were insular and did not listen to the those with experience in the winning grassroots activism that has beaten back repeated anti-gay measures during the last 3 decades.

The gay community was 'disappeared' within ineffective third party media messaging. So the magnificent media saturation about post-Supreme Court ruling weddings that so effectively humanized the issue and lead to double digit opinion margin was completely squandered. Ads never mentioned the subject matter of the proposition -- gay marriage -- and never featured simple first hand heartfelt stories of gay and lesbian families talking about what it meant to them and their children to have the legal benefits of marriage.

Further, in addition to lousy media, there was minimal ground operation, an ineffective Get Out The Vote (GOTV) strategy which resulted in low turnout in key voter rich counties, and most of all, no LA County strategy that provided outreach to our diverse electorate, particularly Blacks and Hispanics..

(continued)

(continued)

We need to ask what happened in LA County, the single most important County in California accounting for 25% of all votes cast in the state, where the No on Prop 8 campaign appears to have collapsed.

It seems the Statewide Prop 8 campaign was primarily lost in Los Angeles County, which due to a 2-to-1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans traditionally typically delivers enough votes to dilute conservative votes elsewhere (primarily in Orange, San Diego and other Counties). LA is crucial to the electoral success of a traditionally liberal cause. In the case of Prop 8, not only did LA not deliver, it went in the wrong direction and contributed to a state deficit of approximately 500,000 votes.

As for turnout, despite repeated media reports about record turnout in the low 80's % the reality was very underwhelming. LA County, with just under 4.3 M registered voters, itself reports a turnout of 65.57%; the State Registrar reports 62.7% turnout for LA. The discrepancy is likely reporting delays. Statewide turnout is reported to be 61.4% but may be revised slightly upward. Either way it is well short of historic levels.

By comparison, turnout in Orange County, with just over 1.4 M registered voters, was 56% which is historically low for a presidential election. It is a bastion of conservative Republican votes.

I blame an incompetent campaign that blew through $36M and had little to show for it but a losing strategy.

But the battle and the struggle continues and it moves to the courts. Judging by the sweeping Supreme Court ruling last May, I believe they are expecting us...

From tegrat:"get some gay friends, for God's sake"

HAHAHAHA! If I had a nickel for every time somebody used that phrase/demand I could buy all my gay friends the right to marry!
Got lots of them (gay friends), here, L.A. & S.F. as well as Key West & Miami, FL.
Get a clue as to the fact that I voted AGAINST 8, not for it. Didn't vote for it, not on account of my gay friends, but rather that it is a selectively unjust (not "unfair" because "fair" don't exist, well, @ least in this world) proposition.
But hey, if you believe 50% of what you feel about me, I'll believe 50% of what I feel about you :) henry

The right of citizens in this state should not have been put up for vote in the first place.

Bigyoonit:"The right of citizens in this state should not have been put up for vote in the first place"
DING, DING, DING! We have a winner! :) henry

EVERYONE hates the Mormons? I would think that most people would simply be indifferent toward them.

According to state records, Santa Barbara City Councilman DALE FRANCISCO made 2 contributions in SUPPORT of Prop 8. I think he has some explaining to do to the citizens of this City.

To find a complete searchable list of contributor filings on Prop 8 go here: http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/

So here's where I have to ask if a "supporters of prop 8 witch hunt" is about to begin.
Whatever happened to voting rights & choosing the candidate or proposition of your choice?
Might as well track down every Latino & Black registered voter that voted for prop 8, deport the guilty Latinos & enslave the guilty Blacks.
Extreme? YEAH! So is going against the right to vote YOUR choice. Man, we just need to move on here :) henry

I see no problem focusing our money on the efforts of people who aren't out to destroy us. On that note, the CEO of Select Staffing, Paul Sorenson, Pres David Sorensen and COO Mark McComb donated a whopping $25,000 total. David Payne, pres of Muzicraft donated $9,550. Scott Haskins Pres of Fine Art Conservation Laboratories (FACL) gave $5,000. That last one is a shock; pres of an art restoration firm? That's some seriously expensive hatred of the very people who created a lot of the artwork you lovingly restore. Shame on you!

Oh, super classy, Terry Leftgot. Let's go on a witchhunt of all who made donations to "Yes on Prop. 8". How ridiculous is that? I love these approaches of those who are againsts Prop. 8, when even the heads of the "No on Prop. 8" campaign are strongly urging their followers to act with more respect, if they are ever to win over those who voted for Prop. 8

And, regarding pelufo's comment about contributor's to Prop. 8., I personally know Scott Haskins of FACL, and he is not a bigot, hater, OR homophobe. He supports traditional marriage, but is in no way anti-gay. So strange to me how "No on Prop. 8" supporters always want to paint those who are not PRO-gay marriage as ANTI-gay. It's simply not true, and it smacks a bit of the intolerance and bigotry that they so decry.

Oh, and one more thing. It's not just Christians who have supported Prop. 8, it's also atheists. A lot of people have an opinion about marriage, not just religious people. Surprised?

Tammy Bruce, the former head of N.O.W. and lesbian activist purports in her book, "The New Thought Police" that our society is now such that all viewpoints and diversities are embraced EXCEPT (heaven forbid!) if you are conservative in your viewpoints. It's true. If you are conservative, you are constantly told that you are wrong and have no right to feel the way you do. Very interesting. . .

Remember, religion/the church is always easy to use as a scapegoat &/or target.
It worked for the nazis & it even propelled communism w/ their plan to eliminate it as an "opiate of the masses."
Why ain't the protesters going to town down in Watts, East L.A. or Oakland? You know the answer to that :) henry

voting to limit the rights of gay couples to less than that of straight couples=anti-gay. end of discussion.

pelufo:"end of discussion."
No, not actually. Just another opinion, definately :) henry

A couple of points:
1. For a group that is so quick to accuse others of "hate", I have seldom been around a group that outwardly expresses more hate than the "No on 8" crowd. Why all the name calling? Reasonable people can have a debate without calling each other names. I have yet to discuss the issue with a single "No on 8" supporter, who did not resort to name calling. I have many gay friends, I am not intolerant, I am not a bigot and I don't hate anyone. Am I allowed to explain why? Apparently not.

2. The bible is clear about homosexuality. The behavior is forbidden. The person is loved, the behavior is condemned. Christ fulfilled the law of Moses, so don't try to relate it to not eating shellfish, etc and picking and choosing what Christians believe. Those who try to explain that the scriptures do not mean what they explicitly say, are rationalizing. It is not a phobia, it is an opinion.

3. A civil right is not granted for a "behavior". There is enough scientific data now to make a convincing argument that homosexuality is a behavior and a person is not "born that way". How else do you explain the tens of thousands who have been "cured" of homosexuality and are living in happy heterosexual relationships. Same sex attraction is certainly present in humans in a very small percentage of the population. Acting on that attraction is a choice. It is not equivalent to skin color or gender. An obvious point of disagreement among reasonable people. But the gay lobby has been very effective in limiting the argument to civil rights, when in fact, the argument is a non-starter for many. And if a person disagrees, they are likened to the bigots of the fifties who discriminated against blacks.

3. Professor Hecht obviously knows little about Mormon theology or doctrine. Monson, as the leader of the Church, opposed Prop. 8 for purely theological reasons. Go to the Church web site and read the "Proclamation on the Family". The Mormons are the faith in America that is the least concerned with mainstreaming. Also, as a faith, they do what they perceive God has told them to do through a Prophet. Hmm, sounds familiar, name any Old Testament Prophet. Mormons equate their Prophet with any Old Testament Prophet. So, the prophet says its time for polygamy. They do it. Then he says, its time to stop polygamy. They stop. Whatever God commands is right at the time. Agree or disagree, that is the Mormon faith. So, to say that Mormon focus on the "sanctity of marriage" is somewhat paradoxical, given the church's history of God-sanctioned polygamy, is just wrong.

4. Agree or disagree with the Mormons, it is wrong to target them for protest. Protest will never change the theology of the Mormons. It will, however, draw like minded people to them. They are reporting a large increases in missionary contacts since the protests began.

Loveforall, you're just pasting your empty arguments all over this website, aren't you? I'll follow your lead, and copy my response:

"The bible is clear about homosexuality."

Fortunately for us, we live in an enlightened society where the religious beliefs of one group are not applied to the entire population. Unless you can explain logically why your religious views are valid, you are not adding anything constructive to the conversation. (I wrote a piece about this topic here: http://www.independent.com/news/2008/nov.........)

"There is enough scientific data now to make a convincing argument that homosexuality is a behavior and a person is not "born that way". How else do you explain the tens of thousands who have been "cured" of homosexuality and are living in happy heterosexual relationships."

Unless you can reference this scientific data, you are once again failing to add anything of value to this forum. As it happens, however, I do have some direct links:

“Brains of homosexuals are structurally and functionally different from those of heterosexuals.”
(http://www.india-server.com/news/homosex.........)

“Two of the most convincing studies have proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause.”
(http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/bor.........)

(As for your comment about hateful comments, while I have certainly seen opponents of Prop 8 give in to overly passionate language, there are many who continue to argue calmly and reasonably. Whether or not you've noticed is another matter.)

Regarding "Pelufo, end of discussion": Just because I don't vote for gay marriage does NOT mean that I am anti-gay. I am for civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. etc. etc. In fact, my own insurance premiums went up substantially a number of years ago because the large corporation decided to cover all same-sex partners. I am now paying several hundred dollars more a month to finance this. But that is really beside the point. The "No on Prop. 8" proponents' misconception that all who voted "yes" are homophobic bigots and haters is simply not true, and most of us are getting quite weary of being characterized this way. It's really very offensive, when you know that you aren't. Again, for what it's worth, every single person I know who voted yes on Prop. 8 absolutely is NOT anti-gay. Why is that so hard to understand? AGAIN, just because you are not FOR gay marriage, does not make you ANTI-gay!

And, to be honest, seeing so many people who contributed money to "yes on 8" being villified, threatened, and harrassed is absolutely unbelievable to me in this day and age. Would that EVER happen if Prop 8 were defeated? Would the "yes" people ever act that way? Never. I would bet money on it. Absolutely unbelievable. It's doing nothing but further alienating those you wish to win over. Why not do something more productive? You're just making yourselves look like idiots and the real haters. Sorry to say, but it's true. I'm even hearing many of the "No on 8" people expressing their embarrassment of those who act this way, who purport to represent "everyone".

anotherperspective:

The fact is, your vote was a direct endorsement to, quoting the Secretary of State:

"ELIMINATE [the] RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY"

That's it. Prop 8 has nothing to do with "traditional" marriage or values. It is solely related to the rights that homosexuals have. And you voted against gay rights.

The right to conduct peaceful economic boycotts, political protests and public exposure (of those who funded Prop 8) are the traditional hallmarks of the American civil rights movement.

I heartily endorse them.

Gosh, for those who claim to be the defenders of all things traditional, I'd think you would respect and defend this one as well.

Terry, while I wholeheartedly agree w/ what you say here, the issue is the direction of the protest.
Remember, 73% of the Black vote, 53% of the Latino vote, why aren't the Black & Latino communities protested?
These protesters should go protest out in front of Casa de la Raza, but they won't because they know the churches are an much easier target to go after.
It's all about who you're protesting, that's what makes the difference to me (personally).
As a person of Latino/Black background & Judeo-Christian belief who opposed prop 8 (mainly on a constitutional basis), I'll NEVER say I'm ashamed to be any of those backgrounds/beliefs based on who voted for prop 8.
All I will say is people voted what they felt, time for the no on 8 crowd to re-startegize.
Ticking people off w/ hateful blanket statements about religious preference is DEFINATELY not the way to go :) henry

hank:

While the black vote did lean heavily in favor of Prop 8, religious groups and organizations (especially the Mormon church) had an enormous impact in terms of financial backing, which enabled the Yes campaign to gain much exposure (and success) during the campaign.

Typo, very true. But think about this: W/ a vote so close, I think it just came down to social attitudes.
My basis for that statement is that if you conducted a survey of Californians today (or even before 11/4/08, & such surveys exist) you'd find that the majority of CA is not affiliated w/ religion or the church, mostly agnostic, some atheist.
If there is a Christian belief, it's usually non-denominational in the general scheme & usually self contained.
I stick to what I said, it was people's arrogance (such as Mayor Gavin Newsom) that ticked some people off.
Lots of folks were sitting on the fence, but swaying to the no on 8 side & then they were reminded: "It's gonna happen... Whether you like it or not!"
That was a taunt that came back to haunt him & severely hurt the no on 8 movement :) henry

The writer needs to join the 21st Century.

Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons not only don't typically hate one another, they respect non-Christian faith traditions.

Incendiary and sensationalistic.

Lay off the coffee.